•* 


Uriiversity  of  California. 


FOB     NOT 


THE    DOCTRINES    OF    TRINITARIANS, 


CONCERNING 


THE  NATURE  OF  GOD  AND  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 


BY    ANDREWS    NORTON. 

v\ 


THIRTEENTH   EDITION. 

WITH  ADDITIONS,  AND  A  BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE 
OF  THE   AUTHOR. 


>^    OP  THE         -0s 

VRB.SITY; 


/y  ,.  riy 

&TFO' 


BOSTON: 
AMERICAN    UNITARIAN    ASSOCIATION: 

1882. 


Alt* 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1866,  by 

CHARLES  ELIOT  NORTON, 
in  cne  Clerk's  Oiflce  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts 


UNIVERSITY 


EDITORIAL    NOTE 


THE  present  edition  of  the  "  Statement  of 
Reasons "  contains  some  additions  and  cor- 
rections made  by  the  author  in  an  interleaved 
copy  of  the  work;  and  a  few  sentences  have 
been  omitted.  The  principal  additions  will 
be  found  on  pp.  97,  98,  103,  104,  and  238, 
239,  of  this  volume,  corresponding  with  pp. 
54,  59,  and  172  of  the  edition  of  1833. 

The  translation  of  passages  quoted  from 
the  Gospels  has,  for  the  most  part,  been  con- 
formed to  that  contained  in  the  author's 
"  Translation  of  the  Gospels,  with  Notes," 
recently  published.  The  changes  thus  made, 
however,  seldom  affect  the  sense. 

The  Biographical  Notice  of  Mr.  Norton,  by 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Newell,  was  first  published  in 
the  Christian  Examiner  for  November,  1853. 


iv  EDITORIAL  NOTE. 

The  editor  has  taken  the  liberty  to  add  a 
few  notes  and  references  in  different  parts  of 
the  volume.  These,  with  the  exception  of 
one  note  of  considerable  length  which  con- 
cludes the  Appendix,  are  carefully  distin- 
guished by  being  enclosed  in  brackets.  What- 
ever is  so  enclosed  is  editorial,  except  where 
brackets  occur  in  the  course  of  quotations 
made  by  the  author. 

An  Index  to  passages  of  Scripture  quoted 
or  referred  to,  and  a  General  Index,  have  also 
been  added  to  the  work. 

E.  A. 
CAMBRIDGE,  April,  1850. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGH 

BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE    OF  MR.  NORTON,  BY  THB    REV. 
WILLIAM  NEWELL,  D.D.  .  ix 


STATEMENT  OF   REASONS. 
PREFACE       8 

SECTION  I. 
PURPOSE  OF  THIS  WORK 39 

SECTION  H. 

THE  PROPER  MODERN  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITT  CON- 
TRADICTORY IN  TERMS  TO  THAT  OF  THE  UNITY  OF  GOD. 
—  FORMS  IN  WHICH  THE  DOCTRINE  HAS  BEEN  STATED, 
WITH  REMARKS.  —  THE  DOCTRINE  THAT  CHRIST  is  BOTH 
GOD  AND  MAN,  A  CONTRADICTION  IN  TERMS. — No  PRE- 
TENCE THAT  EITHER  DOCTRINE  IS  EXPRESSLY  TAUGHT 

IN  THE  SCRIPTURES.  —  THE  MODE  OF  THEIR  SUPPOSED 
PROOF  WHOLLY  BY  WAY  OF  INFERENCE    .  40 

1* 


VI  CONTENTS. 


SECTION  HI. 
THE  PROPOSITION,  THAT   CHRIST  is  GOD,  TROVED  TO  BE 

FALSE  FROM  THE  SCRIPTURES  ....  65 


SECTION  IV. 
ON  THE  ORIGIN  OB  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY        .      94 

SECTION   V. 

CONCERNING  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 
HYPOSTATIC  UNION 107 

SECTION  VI. 

DIFFICULTIES  THAT  MAY  REMAIN  IN  SOME  MINDS  RESPECT- 
ING THE  PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  ALLEGED  BY  TRINI- 
TARIANS ...  136 

SECTION  VII. 

OH  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  LAN- 
GUAGE    .  .  .138 

SECTION   VIII. 

FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  INTERPRETATION  VIOLATED 
BY  TRINITARIAN  EXPOSITORS.  No  PROPOSITION  CAN  BE 
INCOMPREHENSIBLE,  IN  ITSELF  CONSIDERED,  FROM  THE 
NATURE  OF  THE  IDEAS  EXPRESSED  BY  IT  .  .  .  156 


SECTION   IX. 

EXPLANATIONS   OF   PARTICULAR   PASSAGES  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT,  ADDUCED  BY  TRINITARIANS  .        .        .174 

CLASS  I.    Interpolated  and  Corrupted  Passages    .        .         183 
CLASS  II.    Passages  relating  to  Christ  which  have  been 
mistranslated  •    191 


CONTENTS.  V 

CLASS  III.  Passages  relating  to  God,  which  have  been  in- 
correctly applied  to  Christ  .  .  208 

CLASS  IV  Passages  that  might  be  considered  as  referring 
to  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  supposing  it  capable  of 
proof  and  proved,  but  which  in  themselves  present  no 
appearance  of  any  proof  or  intimation  of  it  .  215 

Of  Prayer  to  Christ          ...  221 

On  the  Pre-existence ; of  Christ    .  ...     234 

CLASS  V.  Passages  relating  to  the  divine  authority  of 
Christ  as  the  minister  of  God,  to  the  manifestation  of  di- 
vine power  in  his  miracles  and  in  the  establishment  of 
Christianity,  and  to  Christianity  itself,  spoken  of  under 
the  name  of  Christ,  and  considered  as  a  promulgation 
of  the  laws  of  God's  moral  government,  —  which  have 
been  misinterpreted  as  proving  that  Christ  himself  is 
God .253 

CLASS  VI.  Passages  misinterpreted  through  inattention' 
to  the  peculiar  characteristics  of  the  modes  of  expression 
in  the  New  Testament 286 

CLASS  VII.  Passages,  in  the  senses  assigned  to  which, 
not  merely  the  fundamental  Rule  of  Interpretation,  ex 
plained  in  Section  VIII.,  is  violated,  but  the  most  obvi- 
ous and  indisputable  Characteristics  of  Language  are 
disregarded 804 

CLASS  VIII.    The  Introduction  of  St.  John's  Gospel    .        307 


SECTION   X. 

Il  LUSTRATIONS   OF   THE   DOCTRINE   OP   THE    LOGOS  832 

SECTION  XL 
CONCLUSION  .  375 


V  CONTENTS. 

APPENDIX. 

NOTE  A. 
EXPLANATION  OP  JOHN  vi.  61,  62    .  .  335 

NOTE  B. 

ON  THE   EXPECTATIONS  OP  THE  APOSTLES   CONCERNING 
THE  VISIBLE  RETURN  OF  THEIR  MASTER  TO  EARTH      .    398 

NOTE   C. 
BY  THE  EDITOR. 

VARIOUS  READINGS  OP  CERTAIN  PASSAGES  SUPPOSED  TO 
HATE  A  BEARING  ON  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY       432 


INDEX    TO    PASSAGES    OP    SCRIPTURE    QUOTED    OR    RE- 
FERRED TO ...    483 

GENERAL  INDEX  .  ...  •        480 


BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 


OF 

MR.    NORTON, 

BY  THE 

REV.  WILLIAM  NEWELL,  D.D., 

PA8TOB  OF  THE  FIRST  CHURCH  IN   CAMBI 


THR 

IVERSITY] 

THE  name  of  Andrews  Norton  has  long  been 
widely  known  as  that  of  one  of  the  ablest  theo- 
logians and  most  accomplished  critics  of  our  time ; 
standing,  in  his  department  of  service,  at  the  head 
of  the  Unitarian  movement  in  this  country.  His 
memory  will  be  ever  admiringly  cherished  by  those 
who  sympathized  with  him  in  his  religious  views, 
and  who  knew  him  in  the  fulness  of  his  fine  powers, 
as  it  will  be  honored  by  all  who  are  ready  to  do 
homage  to  a  true  man,  wherever  he  may  be  found, 
by  all  who  in  a  generous  spirit  can  reverence  sin- 
cere piety  and  virtue,  rich  genius  and  learning, 
patient  industry  and  independent  thought,  con- 
secrated to  the  highest  aims,  in  whatever  quarter 
of  the  Christian  camp  their  light  may  shine. 

When  such  a  man  passes  away,  we  cannot  but 
pause  at  his  tomb,  and  hearken  to  the  voices  that 


X  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

come  up  to  us  from  the  receding  past,  louder  and 
louder,  as  we  listen,  speaking  of  his  labors  and 
virtues.  Both  for  the  instruction  of  the  living,  and 
in  justice  and  gratitude  to  the  dead,  we  must 
glance,  if  we  can  do  no  more,  over  the  scenes 
through  which  he  has  moved  and  the  work  which 
he  has  done.  We  propose  to  give  a  brief,  though 
necessarily  an  imperfect,  sketch  of  the  life,  char- 
acter, and  services  of  this  faithful  and  gifted  ser- 
vant of  Christ  and  of  God,  with  a  full  apprecia- 
tion, we  trust,  of  his  high  merits,  but  in  that  spirit 
of  simple  truth  which  he  loved  so  well,  and  which 
was  one  of  the  marked  characteristics  of  the  whole 
man. 

Mr.  Norton  was  a  native  of  Hingham,  Massa- 
chusetts. He  was  a  direct  descendant  of  Rev. 
John  Norton  of  that  town,  who  was  a  nephew  of 
the  celebrated  John  Norton,  minister  of  Ipswich, 
and  afterwards  of  Boston.  His  father,  Samuel 
Norton,  was  a  well-known  and  much  respected 
citizen  of  Hingham,  often  employed  in  its  public 
trusts,  whose  agreeable  conversation  and  manners 
are  spoken  of  by  those  who  remember  him.  He 
was  educated  in  the  tenets  of  Calvinism,  but,  as  he 
grew  older,  the  views  which  it  presents  of  the 
character  and  government  of  God  were  so  revolt- 
ing to  him,  that  for  a  time  he  was  almost  driven 
into  utter  unbelief,  until,  under  the  light  of  truer 
and  brighter  views,  he  found  faith  and  peace.  He 
was  a  man  of  great  devoutness  of  mind,  delight- 
ing to  see  and  to  speak  of  the  Creator's  wisdom 
and  love  in  all  his  works.  He  died  in  1832,  at 


OP    MR.    NORTON.  Xl 

the  advanced  age  of  eighty-eight  He  married 
Miss  Jane  Andrews,  of  Hingham,  a  sister  of  Rev. 
Dr.  Andrews,  for  so  many  years  the  minister  of 
Newburyport.  Another  of  her  brothers  died  from 
a  wound  received  at  the  battle  of  Brandywine. 
She  lived  to  the  age  of  eighty-five,  and  died 
in  1840. 

Andrews  Norton,  the  youngest  child  of  his 
parents,  was  born  December  31,  1786*  From 
childhood  he  was  remarkable  for  his  love  of  books 
and  his  proficiency  in  his  studies.  Having  com- 
pleted his  preparatory  course  at  the  Derby  Acad- 
emy, in  Hingham,  in  1801  he  entered  the  Sopho- 
more class  in  Harvard  College,  and  was  distin- 
guished throughout  his  academical  career  for  his 
high  scholarship  and  correct  deportment.  He 
graduated  in  1804,  the  youngest  of  his  class,  at 
the  age  of  eighteen.  The  natural  seriousness  and 
religious  tone  of  his  mind  determined  him  at  once 
in  the  choice  of  his  profession,  and  led  him,  on 
leaving  college,  to  commence  his  preparation  for 
the  ministry.  He  became  a  Resident  Graduate  at 
Cambridge,  but  not  being  in  haste  to  preach,  he 
quietly  pursued  a  course  of  literary  and  theological 
study,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  that  high  mental 
culture  and  large  erudition  which  afterwards  dis- 
tinguished him.  In  this  scholastic,  but  not  idle 
nor  fruitless  retirement,  he  continued  for  a  few 
years,  residing  partly  at  Cambridge,  partly  at  his 
father's  house  in  Hingham,  until,  in  October,  1809, 
after  preaching  for  a  few  weeks  in  Augusta,  Maine, 
he  accepted  the  office  of  Tutor  in  Bowdoin  College. 


Xll  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

Here  he  remained  a  year,  and  some  of  the  friend- 
ships which  he  then  formed  lasted  through  life. 
After  this  he  returned  to  Cambridge,  which  hence- 
forward became  his  fixed  and  chosen  residence.  In 

1811,  he  was   elected    Tutor   in    Mathematics  in 
Harvard   College,  but  resigned   his    office    at   the 
close  of  the  year.     Mr.  Norton  had  now  reached 
that  point  in  his  career  at  which   the  rich  fruits 
of  genius  and  scholarship,  that  had  been  so  long 
ripening  in  the  shade,  were  to  be  brought  before 
the  public  eye,  and  to  receive  their  due  apprecia- 
tion.    It  will  be  remembered  that  his  entrance  on 
his  theological  studies  was  nearly  coincident  with 
the  breaking  out  of  the  controversy  between  the 
orthodox  and  liberal  parties  in  theology,  occasioned 
by  the  election,  in  1805,  of  Rev.  Dr.  Ware,  then 
minister  of  Hingham,  to  the  Hollis  Professorship. 
Without  going  into  the  history  of  that  controver- 
sy, it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that   it  was  amidst  the 
strong  and  constantly  increasing  excitement  which 
it  produced,  that  Mr.  Norton's  early  manhood  was 
passed.     The   atmosphere   of  the   times   and   the 
character  of  his  associates  contributed,  no  doubt, 
to  strengthen  the  decided  bent  of  his  mind  towards 
the  theological  and  metaphysical  questions  which 
formed  the  subjects  of  discussion  of  the  day.     IB 
the  society  of  such  men  as  Buckminster,  Thacher, 
Charming,    Eliot,    Frisbie,    Farrar,    Kirkland,    and 
others  of  kindred  opinions  and  spirit,  his  attach- 
ment to  the  principles  of  the  liberal  school  must 
have  received    added   impulse    and   strength.     In 

1812,  he  undertook  the  publication  of  u  The  Gen- 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  Xlll 

era!  Repository  and  Review,"  a  work  "  in  which," 
to  use  his  own  words,  "  the  tone  of  opposition  to 
the  prevailing  doctrines  of  Orthodoxy  was  more 
explicit,  decided,  and  fundamental  than  had  been 
common  among  us."  Its  straightforward  boldness 
in  the  expression  of  opinions  which  then  seemed 
new  and  heretical,  while  it  was  admired  and  ap- 
proved by  some,  startled  others,  even  of  the  liberal 
party,  who  thought  that  the  time  for  it  was  not 
yet  ripe.  It  was  conducted  with  signal  ability, 
but  after  the  second  year  was  discontinued  for 
want  of  support.  It  was  too  bold,  and  probably 
somewhat  too  learned,  to  win  general  favor.  But 
it  did  its  work  and  left  its  mark.  In  1813  he 
was  appointed  Librarian  of  the  College.  He  dis- 
charged the  duties  of  his  new  office  with  his 
accustomed  fidelity  and  judgment,  and  under  his 
direction  much  was  done  during  his  eight  years' 
service  towards  improving  the  condition  of  the 
library,  then  in  many  points,  as  in  some  now, 
lamentably  deficient.  He  relinquished  the  charge 
of  it  in  1821  ;  but  he  always  retained  a  warm  in- 
terest in  its  welfare,  and  was  a  generous  con- 
tributor to  it  through  life.  In  1813,  the  same 
year  in  which  he  became  Librarian,  he  was  also 
chosen  Lecturer  on  Biblical  Criticism  and  Inter- 
pretation, under  the  bequest  of  Hon.  Samuel 
Dexter.  The  revered  names  of  Buckminster  and 
Channing  stand  associated  with  his,  as  his  prede- 
cessors elect  in  this  office.  Eminent  as  they  were, 
it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  their  successor  did 
not  fall  below  even  their  mark  ;  that  in  a  peculiar 

2 


XIV  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

fitness  for  the  place,  he  was  in  some  respects  before 
them  ;  and  that  he  carried  out  what  they  had  only 
begun,  or  hoped  to  begin.  Mr.  Norton  preached 
occasionally  in  the  pulpits  of  Boston  and  the 
neighborhood,  and,  though  he  lacked  the  popular 
gifts  of  a  public  speaker,  his  services  were  held  in 
acceptance  by  those  who  were  best  able  to  appre- 
ciate his  true  merits.  At  one  time  during  the 
vacancy  at  the  New  South,  previous  to  the  elec- 
tion of  Mr.  Thacher,  many  of  the  members  of  that 
Society,  as  we  have  been  informed,  would  have 
been  glad  to  invite  Mr.  Norton  to  become  their 
pastor.  His  lectures  in  Cambridge  on  subjects 
of  Biblical  Criticism  were  greatly  admired ;  and 
there  were  persons  who  went  out  from  Boston  to 
hear  them,  whenever  they  were  delivered. 

In  1819,  upon  the  organization  of  the  Divinity 
School  and  the  establishment  of  the  Dexter  Pro- 
fessorship of  Sacred  Literature,  Mr.  Norton  was 
chosen  by  the  Corporation  to  fill  that  office.  He 
was  inaugurated  on  the  10th  of  August,  1819; 
and  the  discourse  which  he  delivered  on  that 
occasion,  republished  by  him  in  his  recent  volume 
of  "  Tracts  on  Christianity,"  ought  to  be  in  the 
hands  of  every  student  of  theology.  He  held  his 
office  till  his  resignation  in  1830  ;  "  bringing  to  it," 

—  to  use  the  words  of  one  of  his  associates  in  the 
Divinity  School,  still  living  and  honored  among  us,* 

—  "his  large  and  ever-increasing  stores  of  knowl- 
edge; imparting  it  in  the  clearest  manner;  never 

*  Professor  Willard. 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  JCV 

dogmatizing,  in  an  ill  sense  of  the  word;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  fortifying  his  doctrines,  solemnly 
and  deliberately  established  in  his  o\Tn  mind, 
with  all  the  arguments  and  proofs  that  his  critical 
studies  and  logical  power  could  furnish."  In  1821, 
he  was  married  to  Miss  Catharine  Eliot,  daughter 
of  Samuel  Eliot,  Esq.,  a  wealthy  and  highly  re- 
spected merchant  of  Boston,  and  a  munificent 
benefactor  of  the  College,  whose  son,  Charles 
Eliot,*  a  young  man  of  rare  promise,  early  cut 
off,  had  been  Mr.  Norton's  intimate  coadjutor 
and  friend.  It  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  in  this 
union  he  found  all  the  happiness  which  earth  has 
to  give,  and  all  that  the  truest  sympathy  and  love 
can  bestow.  In  1822,  he  was  bereaved  of  another 
of  the  dear  friends  whose  society  had  been  among 
the  choicest  blessings  of  his  life,  —  the  highly  gift- 
ed and  pure-minded  Frisbie.  He  delivered  an  ad- 
dress before  the  University  at  his  interment,  and 
the  following  year  published  a  collection  of  his 
literary  remains,  with  a  short  memoir.  In  the  dis- 
cussions which  took  place  in  1824-25,  respect- 
ing the  condition  and  wants  of  the  College,  and 
the  relation  between  the  Corporation  and  the  Im- 
mediate Government,  he  took  a  prominent  part 
both  with  voice  and  pen.  In  1824,  he  published 
his  "  Remarks  on  a  Report  of  a  Committee  of  the 
Board  of  Overseers  "  proposing  certain  changes  in 
the  instruction  and  discipline  of  the  College.  In 
February,  1825,  he  appeared  before  the  Board  ol 

*  The  Miscellaneous  Writings  of  Charles  Eliot,  with  a  biographi 
cal  memoir  by  Mr.  Norton,  were  printed  in  1814 


XVI  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

Overseers  in  behalf  of  the  memorial  of  the  Resi- 
dent Instructors,  relative  to  "  the  mode  in  which, 
according  to  the  charter  of  the  institution,  the 
Corporation  of  the  same  ought  of  right  to  be 
constituted."  Edward  Everett,  then  Professor  of 
Greek  Literature  in  the  University,  spoke  in  the 
morning,  and  Mr.  Norton  in  the  afternoon  and 
evening,  in  support  of  the  memorial.  Mr.  Norton's 
speech  was  afterwards  published.  His  admiration 
of  the  poetry  of  Mrs.  Hemans  induced  him,  in 
1826,  to  undertake  the  collection  and  republication 
of  her  works  in  this  country,  in  a  style  suited  to 
his  estimation  of  their  merits ;  and  in  an  article  in 
the  Examiner  during  that  year,  followed  by  other 
articles  on  the  same  subject  at  different  times,  he 
labored  to  impress  on  the  public  mind  his  own 
sense  of  their  richness  and  beauty.  In  the  spring 
of  1828,  partly  for  the  benefit  of  his  health,  partly 
for  the  enjoyment  of  the  tour,  he  went  to  England. 
He  enjoyed  so  much  during  this  visit,  and  formed 
so  many  pleasant  acquaintances,  especially  with 
those  whom  he  had  long  admired  in  their  writings 
(Mrs.  Hemans  among  others),  that,  in  a  career  so 
quiet  and  uneventful  as  his  for  the  most  part  was, 
it  took  its  place  among  the  most  interesting  recol- 
lections of  his  life.  After  the  resignation  of  his 
Professorship,  in  1830,  he  continued  to  devote 
himself  to  literary  and  theological  pursuits.  At 
the  earnest  solicitation  of  a  friend  (Rev.  William 
Ware,  we  believe),  urging  the  republication  of  his 
article  on  "  Stuart's  Letters  to  Channing,"  he 
undertook  to  revise  and  enlarge  it;  and  the  re 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  XVU 

suit  of  his  labors  —  a  new  work  in  fact,  the  most 
able,  thorough,  and  learned  refutation  of  the  Trin- 
itarian doctrine  that  has  yet  appeared  —  was 
given  to  the  press  in  1833,  under  the  title  of 
"  A  Statement  of  Reasons  for  not  believing  the 
Doctrines  of  Trinitarians  concerning  the  Nature 
of  God  and  the  Person  of  Christ."  In  1833-34, 
he  edited,  in  connection  with  his  friend,  Charles 
Folsom,  Esq.,  "  The  Select  Journal  of  Foreign 
Periodical  Literature,"  a  quarterly  publication,  the 
plan  and  object  of  which  are  to  some  extent  in- 
dicated by  the  title.  It  contained  also  remarks 
and  criticisms  by  the  editors,  and  some  longer 
articles  by  Mr.  Norton.  In  1837,  he  published  the 
first  volume  of  his  elaborate  work  on  the  "  Genu- 
ineness of  the  Gospels."  In  1839,  at  the  invitation 
of  the  Alumni  of  the  Divinity  School,  he  delivered 
the  annual  discourse  before  them,  afterwards  pub- 
lished, "  On  the  Latest  Form  of  Infidelity."  Those 
who  remember  him  as  he  appeared  on  that  occa- 
sion, speaking  to  many  of  them  for  the  last  time, 
will  not  soon  forget  the  impressions  of  that  day, 
deepened  by  the  evident  feebleness  of  his  health, 
by  his  slow,  impressive  utterance,  and  the  "  sweetly 
solemn  "  tones  of  that  well-known  voice,  speaking 
out  with  slightly  tremulous  earnestness  the  deep 
convictions  of  a  truth-loving,  Christ-loving  man, 
as  with  eagle  eye  he  saw  danger  in  the  distance, 
where  others  saw  only  an  angel  of  light,  and  with 
a  prophet's  earnestness  sounded  the  alarm.  The 
publication  of  Mr.  Norton's  discourse  led  to  a  con- 
troversy, in  which  he  further  illustrated  and  <le- 
2* 


XViil  BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE 

fended  the  views  which  he  had  expressed  respect- 
ing the  "  Modern  German  School  of  Infidelity." 

In  1844  appeared  the  second  and  third  volumes 
of  his  work  on  the  "  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels," 
completing  the  important  and  laborious  investi- 
gation, which  had  occupied  him  for  so  many  years, 
of  the  historical  evidence  on  this  subject.  With 
the  exception  of  his  volume  of  "  Tracts  on  Chris- 
tianity," printed  in  1852,  composed  chiefly  of  the 
larger  essays  and  discourses  which  had  before 
appeared  in  a  separate  form,  this  was  his  last 
published  book. 

Mr.  Norton's  life,  certainly  the  most  prominent 
portion  of  it,  moved  through  sunshine.  Clouded 
as  it  was  by  occasional  bereavement,  the  common 
lot,  and  by  the  infirm  health  of  his  latter  days,  it 
was  yet,  in  other  respects,  a  singularly  happy  one. 
He  was  surrounded  with  every  earthly  blessing. 
He  had  within  his  reach  all  that  can  feed  the 
intellect,  or  gratify  the  taste.  He  had  leisure  and 
opportunity  for  his  chosen  work.  And  all  around 
him  was  an  atmosphere  of  purity  and  peace.  His 
strong  and  tender  affections  bloomed  fresh  and 
green  to  the  last,  in  the  sunny  light  of  a  Christian 
home.  He  loved  and  was  loved,  where  to  love 
and  to  be  loved  is  a  man's  joy  and  crown.  He 
had  both  the  means  and  the  heart  to  do  good. 
And  so,  in  tranquil  labor,  in  calm  reflection,  in 
grave  discussion  of  high  themes,  or  in  the  play  of 
cheerful  conversation,  amid  the  books  and  the 
friends  he  loved,  "  faded  his  late  declining  years 
«way."  His  strength  had  been  for  a  long  time 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  XiX 

very  gradually  failing,  as  by  the  decay  of  a  pre- 
mature old  age.  In  the  autumn  of  1849,  it  was 
suddenly  prostrated  by  severe  illness,  from  the 
effects  of  which  he  never  entirely  recovered.  By 
the  advice  of  his  physician,  he  passed  the  follow- 
ing summer  at  Newport,  with  such  great  and  de- 
cided benefit  to  his  health  from  the  change  of  air, 
that  it  was  resolved  to  make  it  in  future  his  summer 
residence.  But  in  the  spring  of  1853,  it  was  evi- 
dent that  his  strength  was  declining,  and  that  the 
bracing  sea-breeze  had  lost  its  power  to  restore  it. 
He  became  more  and  more  feeble,  till,  at  the  close 
of  the  summer,  he  was  unable  to  leave  his  room ; 
but  his  mind  remained  strong  and  unclouded  al- 
most to  the  last.  He  was  fully  aware  that  the 
end  drew  nigh.  And  he  met  death,  as  we  should 
expect  that  he  above  most  men  would  meet  it, 
with  all  a  Christian's  firmness,  tranquilly,  trust- 
ingly, with  a  hope  full  of  immortality,  reposing  on 
the  bosom  of  the  Father.  His  patience,  serenity, 
gentleness,  his  calm  faith  in  God,  the  heavenlineas 
of  his  spirit,  the  sweetness  of  his  smile,  illumined 
and  sanctified  the  house  of  death.  He  gradually 
sunk  away,  till  on  Sunday  evening,  September  18, 
the  quivering  flame  of  life  went  out,  and  the  shin- 
ing light  within  ascended  to  the  Father  of  lights. 

The  life  of  Mr.  Norton  was  that  of  a  diligent 
student  and  thinker,  doing  his  work  in  the  still  air 
of  the  library,  and  withdrawn  from  the  stir  and 
rush  of  the  great  world,  yet  not  indifferent  to  its 
movements,  nor  unconcerned  in  its  welfare.  He 
mingled  little  in  political  affairs,  though  in  them. 


XX  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

as  in  everything  else,  he  had  his  own  distinct 
judgment  and  decided  action,  when  the  time 
called.  He  took  no  prominent  part  in  the  moral 
reforms  of  the  day.  A  lover  of  his  country,  a 
lover  of  his  kind,  he  expressed  his  patriotism  and 
his  philanthropy  in  quiet,  individual  ways.  What- 
ever he  did  for  others,  there  was  no  sounding  of  a 
trumpet  before  him.  He  went  little  into  general 
society.  He  had  enough,  as  we  have  seen,  to 
occupy  his  time  and  his  thoughts,  without  going 
out  of  his  little  world  into  the  larger.  The  deli- 
cacy of  his  health  and  the  languidness  of  his 
animal  spirits,  added  to  the  studiousness  of  his 
habits  and  his  natural  reserve,  made  him  some- 
what of  a  recluse.  But  his  house,  with  its  kind 
and  sincere  hospitality,  was  always  open,  nor  was 
his  heart  cold,  or  his  hand  shut. 

He  was  never  idle ;  but  he  chose  to  labor  in 
his  own  way,  apart  from  the  crowd.  He  knew 
that  he  should  labor  more  happily  and  more  use- 
fully so.  He  kept  aloof  from  public  excitements. 
He  had  no  taste  for  public  meetings.  He  had  not 
the  showy,  popular  gifts,  which  fit  a  man  for  the 
speeches  of  the  platform ;  nor  the  impulsive  social 
temperament,  which  throv/s  itself  into  the  boiling 
current  of  the  times.  He  was,  both  by  nature 
and  on  principle,  disinclined  to  enter  into  the 
associated  movements  of  denominational  warfare. 
He  objected  to  the  Unitarian  name.  He  did  not 
favor  the  formation  of  the  Unitarian  Association. 
On  this  point  he  differed  decidedly,  but  quietly  and 
amicably,  from  the  majority  of  his  brethren.  No 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  X J  1 

man  prized  the  truths  of  Liberal  Christianity  more 
highly  than  he,  or  held  them  with  a  firmer  grasp ; 
but  he  believed  that  they  would  make  their  way 
more  surely,  and  in  the  end  more  rapidly,  with  less 
irritating  friction  against  the  popular  modes  of 
faith,  and  with  less  peril,  both  from  without  and 
from  within,  if  left  to  the  quiet  channels  of  indi- 
vidual speech  and  individual  effort.  He  therefore 
studiously  kept  aloof  from  any  distinct,  formal 
organization,  even  for  the  maintenance  and  dif- 
fusion of  doctrines  dearer  to  him  than  life. 

And  yet  this  reserved,  independent,  solitary 
thinker,  moving  in  his  own  orbit,  towards  his 
chosen  goal,  carried  with  him  by  a  mastery  which 
he  did  not  seek,  and  by  a  gravitation  which  was 
but  the  natural  result  of  his  intellectual  greatness, 
a  host  of  other  minds  that  rejoiced  in  his  kingly 
light.  By  the  massive  power  of  his  mind  and  the 
weight  of  his  learning,  by  the  force  of  his  character 
and  the  impressive  authority  of  his  word,  spoken 
and  written,  he  wielded  for  many  years  an  influ- 
ence in  the  body  to  which  he  belonged,  such  as 
few  other  men  among  us  have  ever  possessed. 
This  influence,  as  quiet  as  it  was  powerful,  was 
exerted  partly  through  his  stated  teachings  in  the 
Divinity  School  at  Cambridge,  partly  through  his 
private  conversational  intercourse,  partly  through 
the  occasional  articles  and  the  more  elaborate 
works  which  came  forth,  "few  and  far  between," 
from  his  scrupulous  pen.  What  he  was  and  did 
in  his  several  fields  of  theological  service  is  well 
understood  by  many  of  our  readers;  but  those 


XX11  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

who  knew  little  of  him  will  be  glad  to  know  more, 
and 'those  who  knew  him  best  will  love  to  read 
over  again  the  recollections  of  the  past,  and  to 
dwell  on  the  memory  of  what  they  owe  him. 

Mr,  Norton  brought  to  the  Professorship  of 
Sacred  Literature  a  combination  of  rich  qualifica- 
tions, natural  and  acquired,  for  his  high  office, 
such  as  is  rarely  found,  such  as  we  can  hardly 
hope  to  see  again,  approximating  the  ideal  of  the 
consummate  theologian  described  by  him  in  his 
Inaugural  Discourse ;  —  an  acute  and  vigorous  in- 
tellect, disciplined  in  all  its  faculties  by  laborious 
study,  trained  to  habits  of  clear  and  exact  reason- 
ing, and  remarkable  alike  for  its  powers  of  analysis 
and  discrimination,  for  the  logical  ability  with 
which  it  grappled  with  the  questions  before  it,  for 
the  intense  and  sustained  concentration  of  its 
strength  on  its  chosen  subjects,  and  for  the  native 
sagacity  and  good  sense  with  which  it  saw  its 
way  to  the  hidden  truth  ;  varied  and  extensive 
learning,  as  finished  and  accurate  as  it  was  full ; 
a  most  pure  and  nicely  critical  taste ;  a  fine 
imagination,  that  stood  back  in  waiting  as  the 
handmaid  to  his  robust  understanding;  a  com- 
plete command  of  his  accumulated  resources;  an 
inwardly  enthusiastic  devotion  to  the  studies 
which  he  had  embraced,  and  the  highest  appie- 
ciation  of  their  nobleness  and  importance;  a 
masterly  familiarity  with  the  science  of  Scrip- 
tural interpretation,  and  with  the  whole  circle  of 
theological  science ;  a  love  of  original  and  inde- 
pendent investigation,  going  back  to  the  fountain- 


OF    MR.    NORTON. 

head,  and  never  satisfying  itself  with  guesses  or 
traditions ;  an  indefatigable  assiduity  and  patience 
of  examination  and  of  pursuit  in  the  researches 
which  formed  the  business  of  his  life ;  the  most 
scrupulous  carefulness  in  the  statement  of  facts; 
a  simple  lucidness  of  expression  and  daylight 
distinctness  of  thought,  even  in  the  abstrusest 
themes,  as  of  one  who  believed  that  intelligible 
ideas  can  be  conveyed  in  intelligible  words,  and 
that  no-  others  are  worth  having ;  a  conscientious 
slowness  in  forming  his  conclusions,  combined 
with  great  strength,  earnestness,  and  decision  in 
maintaining  the  opinions  at  which  he  at  length 
arrived ;  a  confidence  that  justified  itself  to  those 
who  knew  him  in  the  results  of  his  so  cautiously 
conducted  inquiries,  and  a  conscious  authority 
which  impressed  his  convictions  on  others;  and 
with  and  above  all  other  gifts,  surrounding  them 
with  a  sacred  halo,  the  profound  religiousness  of 
his  nature,  seen,  not  shown,  the  depth  and  calm 
intensity  of  his  faith  in  Christianity  and  in  Christ, 
the  elevated  seriousness  of  his  views  of  life  and 
duty,  and  the  purity,  delicacy,  uprightness,  of  his 
whole  character. 

The  influence  of  such  a  man,  both  in  his  in- 
structions and  his  example,  on  the  minds  which 
were  brought  into  contact  with  him  at  the  Divin- 
ity School  in  Cambridge,  can  hardly  be  overrated. 
They  regarded  him  with  peculiar  reverence  and 
admiration.  They  listened  with  eagerness  and 
profound  interest  to  his  decided  and  luminous 
'Vords,  so  aptly  expressive  of  his  decided  an/ 


XXlV  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

luminous  thoughts.  Even  if  they  were  not  pre- 
pared to  accept  his  conclusions,  they  did  not  the 
less  admire  the  strength  and  fulness  with  which 
they  were  set  forth.  His  admirable  elucidations 
of  Scripture,  his  searching  criticisms  on  the  vari- 
ous readings  or  various  theories  of  interpretation, 
his  convincing  expositions  of  Christian  doctrine, 
his  solemn  and  impressive  representations  of  the 
character  and  teachings  of  Christ,  his  interesting 
unwritten  (yet,  it  seemed  to  us,  as  complete  and 
exact,  both  in  thought  and  language,  as  if  they 
had  been  written)  dissertations  on  some  point  of 
theological  or  metaphysical  inquiry,  his  wise  hints 
and  counsels  to  the  young  preacher,  uttered  in 
that  peculiar  manner  of  his  which  gave  them  a 
double  force,  will  never  be  forgotten  by  those  who 
heard  them.  Even  those  who  on  some  points  are 
not  in  sympathy  with  him,  love  to  bear  testimony 
to  his  high  merits.  The  voluntary  tribute  which 
Dr.  Furness  rendered  to  him  some  years  since  in 
his  work  on  "  Jesus  and  his  Biographers,"  is  as 
just  as  it  is  heart-felt. 

"  I  esteem  it  an  invaluable  privilege,"  he  says, 
"  to  have  been  introduced  to  the  study  of  the  New 
Testament  under  the  clear  and  able  guidance  of 
Mr.  Norton.  How  fully  did  he  realize  the  idea 
of  a  true  instructor,  not  standing  still  and  pointing 
out  our  way  for  us  over  a  beaten  path,  but  ascend- 
ing every  height,  descending  into  every  depth,  with 
'his  whole  attention  and  heart,  and  carrying  the 
hearts  of  his  pupils  along  with  him.  The  remem- 
brance of  those  days,  when  a  rich  and  powerful 


OP    MR.    NORTON.  XX\ 

mind,  animated  by  the  spirit  of  truth,  came  close 
to  my  own  mind,  renders  more  vivid  my  sense 
of  the  meaning  of  the  great  Teacher  of  teachers 
when  he  described  the  increase  of  the  power  of 
truth,  which  was  the  life  of  his  being,  under  the 
figure  of  a  personal  corning,  and  said,  '  If  any  man 
will  keep  my  commandments,  my  Father  will  love 
him,  and  we  will  come  unto  him  and  make  OUT 
abode  with  him.'  " 

"  Whatever  interest  I  have  felt  in  the  study  o 
the  Bible,"  says  another  of  the  most  eminent  o 
our  Unitarian  divines,  "  or  whatever  knowledge  1 
have  gained  of  the  proper  way  of  pursuing  that 
study,  T  owe  in  great  measure  to  him,  certainly 
more  to  him  than  to  all  other  men.     And  when  I 
look  back  to  the  three  years  spent  under  his  kind 
and  faithful  instruction,  I  seem  to  return  to  one 
of  the  happiest  as  well  as  most  profitable  periods 
of  my  life." 

It  has  been  said,  that  the  awe  which  he  uncon 
sciously  inspired  was  sometimes  unfavorable  to 
the  free  action  and  free  expression  of  thought  in 
those  who  sat  under  his  instructions ;  and  that  the 
severity  of  his  taste,  and  his  known  dislike,  openly 
or  silently  expressed,  of  everything  which  bordered 
on  what  is  theatrical  in  manner,  or  over-florid  in 
style,  or  extravagant  in  sentiment,  had  a  tendency 
to  repress  too  much  the  exuberance  of  youthful 
imagination  and  the  warmth  of  youthful  feeling, 
Certainly  the  danger  was  on  that  side.  But  for 

*  Furness's  Jesus  and  his  Biographers,  p.  212. 

9 


XXV?  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTIOF 

one  who  may  perchance  have  suffered  from  this 
cause,  many,  we  are  sure,  will  thank  him  through 
life  for  the  restraining,  improving,  and  elevating 
influence  which  he  exerted  on  their  minds  and 
hearts. 

But  the  field  of  Mr.  Norton's  labors  and  useful- 
ness extended  far  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  theo- 
logical institution  with  which  he  was  for  a  time 
connected,  and  of  the  religious  body  to  which  he 
belonged.  He  became  known  and  widely  re- 
spected through  the  writings,  chiefly  of  a  religious, 
partly  of  a  literary  character,  which  through  vari- 
ous channels  he  gave  to  the  press.  He  was  too 
careful  of  truth,  and  too  careless  of  present  fame, — 
like  his  great  neighbor-artist  painting  for  immor- 
tality and  giving  the  last  touches  to  his  work  till 
death  found  him  still  waiting  to  finish  it,  —  too 
deeply  impressed  with  the  sense  of  an  author's 
responsibleness  in  the  publication  of  his  opinions 
on  important  subjects,  too  anxious  that  his  offer- 
ings at  the  altar  of  Christian  science  should  be 
without  blemish  and  without  spot,  to  be  a  rapid  or 
voluminous  writer.  Non  multa  sed  multum.  He 
has  left  enough  to  lay  us  under  a  lasting  debt  of 
gratitude.  Whenever  we  hear  a  contrast  sug- 
gested between  him  and  others  in  this  respect, 
implying  some  defect  on  his  part,  we  are  always 
reminded  of  the  old  fable,  in  the  school-book,  of 
the  Cony  and  the  Lion.  "  See  my  troop  of  little 
ones !  and  how  many  hast  thou  ?  "  "  One,  but  a 
don."  One  such  work  as  that  on  the  "  Genuine- 

"«  of  the  Gospels  "  is  more  honorable  to  a  man, 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  XXVU 

than  a  score  of  imperfectly  prepared,  roughly  fin- 
ished, loosely  jointed  productions,  soon  to  die  and 
be  forgotten.  Besides,  each  one  must  work  in  his 
own  way,  and  not  in  another's ;  and  each  subject 
must  have  its  own  mode  of  treatment.  The  in- 
quiries on  which  Mr.  Norton  spent  his  strength 
demand  of  a  conscientious  man  all  the  thought, 
labor,  long  circumspection,  and  minuteness  of  in- 
vestigation which  he  can  give  them.  He  held  his 
place,  he  did  his  part, — a  high  and  peculiar  one, — 
in  the  confirmation  and  advancement  of  Christian 
truth.  Let  others  be  as  faithful  to  theirs.  A  sur- 
vey, however,  of  Mr.  Norton's  actual  labors,  both 
as  a  theologian  and  a  man  of  letters,  will  show 
that  his  life  was  a  continuously  industrious  one; — 
and  even  on  the  point  to  which  we  have  referred, 
the  amount  of  his  published  writings,  some  in- 
justice may  have  been  done  him  from  the  fact 
that  many  of  them  appeared  in  the  periodical 
literature  of  his  day,  and  stand  somewhat  out  of 
sight. 

Mr.  Norton's  earliest  contributions  to  the  press 
appeared  in  the  Literary  Miscellany,  a  periodical 
published  in  Cambridge  in  the  style  of  the  day,  in 
1804-5.  They  are  a  notice  of  Cowper,  a  short 
review  of  a  sermon  by  Rev.  Henry  Ware,  his  pas- 
tor, and  one  or  two  short  poetical  translations. 
They  are  of  little  interest,  except  as  indicating  the 
turn  of  his  mind  at  the  age  of  eighteen  or  nineteen, 
and  as  dimly  foreshadowing  to  us  in  their  subjects 
the  future  career  of  the  theologian,  the  man  of 
letters,  and  the  poet.  He  wrote  some  years  after 


OAlll  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

this  for  the  Monthly  Anthology.  To  some  of  its 
volumes  his  contributions,  we  believe,  were  fre- 
quent. 

It  was  not,  however,  till  he  assumed  the  editor- 
ship of  the  General  Repository,  that  his  full  power 
as  a  thinker  and  a  writer  was  publicly  developed 
and  understood.  The  first  article  of  that  work,  a 
very  clear  and  powerful,  and,  as  it  was  then  con- 
sidered, a  very  bold  article,  entitled  "  A  Defence  of 
Liberal  Christianity,"  was  written  by  him,  and 
attracted  much  notice.  Its  sentiments,  then  new, 
or  not  before  so  openly  expressed,  drew  down 
severe  animadversion  from  the  orthodox  pulpit 
and  press.  This  was  followed  by  his  masterly 
review,  continued  through  several  numbers  of  the 
same  periodical,  of  the  "  Controversy  between  Dr. 
Priestley,  Dr.  Horsley,  and  others,"  evincing  the 
most  thorough  learning  and  the  most  patient  re- 
search. Other  minor  contributions  of  his,  literary 
and  poetical,  are  scattered  through  the  work. 

With  the  New  Series  of  the  Christian  Disciple, 
commenced  in  1819,  Mr.  Norton  resumed  his  pub- 
lic literary  labors,  which  appear  to  have  been  sus- 
pended for  a  time  in  consequence  of  the  discon- 
tinuance of  the  General  Repository,  and  the  want 
of  an  appropriate  organ  for  the  utterance  of  his 
views.  Besides  some  smaller  articles  of  a  general 
character,  he  contributed  several  critical  and  doc- 
trinal dissertations  of  great  value  and  interest,  and 
full  of  that  marked  power  which  placed  him  at 
the  head  of  the  theological  and  controversial  writ- 
ers of  his  day.  Among  these  are  his  Review  of 


OF    MK     NORTON.  XXIX 

Stuart's  Letters  to  Charming,  by  far  the  mobt  able, 
complete,  and  at  the  same  time  condensed  con- 
futation of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  which  has 
yet  appeared, —  his  "Thoughts  on  True  and  False 
Religion,"  —  and  his  "  Views  of  Calvinism."  The 
earlier  volumes  of  the  Christian  Examiner  were 
also  enriched  by  his  pen.  The  articles  on  the 
Poetry  of  Mrs.  Hemans,  and  one  on  Pollok's 
Course  of  Time,  will  be  remembered  among  those 
of  a  purely  literary  character.  Besides  these  and 
several  religious  essays  in  the  first  and  second 
volumes  of  the  Examiner,  on  the  "  Future  Life  of 
the  Good,"  the  "  Works  of  God,"  the  «  Punish- 
ment of  Sin,"  the  "  Duty  of  Continual  Improve- 
ment," &c.,  he  contributed  some  critical  disserta- 
tions and  reviews.  His  articles  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  in  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  vol- 
umes, form  the  most  valuable  and  instructive  dis- 
cussion which  has  appeared  in  the  English  lan- 
guage, or  perhaps  in  any  language,  on  that  subject. 
We  wish  they  might  be  republished,  as  a  separate 
work,  for  wider  circulation.  His  last  contribution 
to  the  Christian  Examiner  appeared,  in  September, 
1849,  in  the  shape  of  a  letter  to  his  friend,  Mr. 
George  Ticknor,  on  the  "  Origin  and  Progress  of 
Liberal  Christianity  in  New  England,  and  on  Mr. 
Buckmins+er's  Relations  to  them."  He  wrote  also 
for  the  North  American  Review,  though  not  often. 
His  most  noticeable  articles  in  that  publication  are 
those  on  "  Franklin,"  in  January,  1818,  on  "  Byron," 
in  October,  1825,  on  Rev.  William  Ware's  "  Letters 
from  Palmyra,"  in  October,  1837,  and  a  "  Memoii 


XXX  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

of  Mrs.  Grant  of  Laggan,"  in  January,  1845.  His 
severe  strictures  on  the  character  of  Lord  Byron, 
and  the  immoral  tendency  of  some  of  his  poems, 
although  he  allowed  him  all  the  praise  justly  due 
to  his  remarkable  genius,  were  highly  unpalatable 
to  the  idolatrous  admirers  of  that  great  poet.  But 
they  were  seasonable  and  true,  and  will  commend 
themselves  to  every  mind  of  pure  taste  and  high 
principle,  that  is  not  dazzled  and  blinded  by  the 
intellectual  splendor  which,  like  the  silver  veil  of 
Mokanna,  may  hide  from  his  votaries  the  deformity 
beneath.  In  this,  as  in  all  Mr.  Norton's  critiques 
on  the  poetry  and  literature  of  the  times,  the  influ- 
ence which  he  exerted  was  of  the  highest  and  most 
salutary  kind,  laboring  as  he  did  with  all  his  ear- 
nestness and  strength  to  bring  the  literary  judg- 
ments of  the  community  into  harmony  with  Chris- 
tian morals  and  a  Christian  taste,  and  fearlessly 
opposing  himself  to  the  popular  current,  when, 
either  in  theology  or  in  letters,  it  was  running,  or 
in  danger  of  running,  the  wrong  way. 

The  Select  Journal  contains  also  much  original 
matter  by  him.  The  longest  articles  in  this  work 
from  his  pen  are  upon  "  Goethe"  and  "  Hamilton's 
Men  and  Manners  in  America." 

Mr.  Norton's  withdrawal  for  the  last  twenty 
years  from  very  active  and  prominent  service  may 
have  created  a  false  impression  in  some  minds  re- 
specting the  amount  of  his  labors.  It  will  be  seen 
from  the  survey  that  has  been  given  of  his  contri- 
butions to  the  religious  and  other  periodicals  of 
his  time,  that  his  life  —  especially  when  we  take 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  XXXI 

into  consideration  the  important  occupations  of 
his  Professorship,  the  nature  of  his  studies,  and 
the  engagements  of  various  kinds  which  fall  upon 
a  man  in  his  position  —  was  not  only  laboriously 
industrious,  but  an  abundantly  productive  one. 
He  was  so  little  ambitious  of  shining  before  the 
world,  and  so  independent,  both  in  mind  and  in 
circumstances,  of  any  outward  pressure,  —  he  was 
so  careful  and  conscientiously  thorough  in  all  that 
he  undertook,  besides  being  always  so  far  from 
robust,  and,  latterly,  so  much  of  an  invalid,  —  that 
we  ought  rather  to  be  grateful  that  he  did  so  much, 
than  to  wonder  that  he  did  not  do  more.  He  was 
not  a  man  to  be  hurried  by  the  false  expectations  of 
others.  He  wrought  "  as  in  his  great  Taskmaster's 
eye,"  not  for  theirs.  He  knew  best  when  his  work 
was  finished,  and  then,  and  not  till  then,  it  came 
forth. 

The  last  years  of  Mr.  Norton's  life  were  chiefly 
devoted  to  the  preparation  and  the  completion  of 
important  works,  long  planned  in  the  hope  of  ren- 
dering permanent  service  to  the  religion  which  he 
loved  with  all  his  mind  and  heart  and  strength,  as 
his  own  and  the  world's  most  precious  treasure 
and  hope.  One,  his  great  work  on  the  "  Genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels,"  will  be  a  lasting  monument 
of  his  intellectual  ability  and  his  patient,  consci- 
entious research,  and  one  of  the  standard  contribu- 
tions to  the  evidences  of  our  Christian  faith,  which 
will  go  down  to  posterity  in  company  with  those 
of  the  greatest  names  in  this  department  of  Chris- 
tian study.  It  is  an  honor  to  our  country,  of  which 


XXX11  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

we  have  quite  as  much  reason  to  be  proud,  as  ol 
other  illustrious  achievements  by  other  pens  in 
more  popular  and  better  appreciated  fields  of  men- 
tal labor.  The  historian,  the  poet,  the  orator  rise 
at  once  into  the  upper  sky  of  a  nation's  admi- 
ration, and  their  names  become  world-renowned. 
The  great  theologian,  the  profound  thinker,  the  re- 
tired scholar,  elaborating  in  his  study  the  noblesl 
products  of  thought,  and  establishing  truths  of  the 
most  vital  importance  to  the  highest  interests  ol 
man,  must,  like  Kepler,  wait  his  time.  Sooner  or 
later  that  time  will  come,  and  the  tardy  verdict  of 
the  world  will  crown  him  with  its  laurel  wreath. 

The  three  volumes  of  the  work  just  mentioned 
contain  an  elaborate  exposition  —  finished  with  all 
that  minute  accuracy  for  which  Mr.  Norton  was  so 
remarkable,  and  with  all  that  logical  acuteness  and 
strength  for  which  he  was  equally  distinguished  — 
of  the  historical  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels.  It  was  his  intention,  if  his  life  and 
health  had  been  continued,  to  add  another  vol- 
ume concerning  the  internal  evidences  of  their 
genuineness ;  which  he  wished,  however,  to  ap- 
pear simultaneously  with  a  new  translation  of  the 
Gospels,  accompanied  by  explanatory  notes,  on 
which  he  had  been  long  engaged.  He  did  not 
live  to  complete,  as  we  fondly  hoped  he  might, 
the  former  part  of  his  plan  ;  but  we  rejoice,  and  all 
who  knew  him  will  rejoice  with  us,  to  learn  that 
the  translation  of  the  Gospels  with  critical  and 
explanatory  notes,  the  work  which  we  believe  he 
had  most  at  heart,  is  entirely  finished,  and  \n  a 


OF    MR.    NORTON*.  XXX111 

state  of  preparation  for  the  press.  Consecrated  to 
as  as  it  is  by  his  long  laboi  upon  it,  and  bearing 
to  us  the  last  messages  of  his  pen,  we  shall  look- 
forward  to  its  publication  with  an  eager  interest, 
believing  that  it  will  afford  important  aid  to  every 
class  of  readers  in  the  interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament,  bring  out  with  new  force  the  evidences 
of  its  truth,  and  present  in  a  clearer  and  fuller 
light  the  beauty  and  power  of  our  Saviour's  char- 
acter, the  sublime  import  of  his  teachings,  and  the 
divine  greatness  of  his  life.*  We  hope,  also,  that 
a  dissertation,  prepared  by  him,  as  is  understood, 
within  a  recent  period,  on  the  theory  of  Strauss 
and  its  kindred  vagaries,  and  forming  a  part  of  his 
contemplated  volume  on  the  internal  evidences  of 
the  Gospels,  may  be  in  some  form  given  to  the 
world.  It  may  interest  our  readers  also  to  know, 

*  Since  the  above  was  written,  this  important  and  instructive  work 
-the  precious  legacy  of  the  Christian  scholar,  laboring  to  the  last  for 
the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  the  matured  fruit  of  long  years  of  patient 
and  conscientious  study  —  has  been  issued  from  the  press  (in  May, 
1855),  under  the  editorship  of  his  son,  Mr.  Charles  Eliot  Norton, 
and  Mr.  Ezra  Abbot,  Jr.,  in  two  volumes  octavo,  the  first  volume 
containing  the  Translation,  and  the  second,  the  Notes.  Simultane- 
ously with  this,  in  accordance  with  the  plan  proposed  to  himself  by 
Mr.  Norton,  they  published  another  volume  of  his  writings,  entitled 
"  Internal  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,"  containing 
"  Remarks  on  Christianity  and  the  Gospels,  with  particular  reference 
tt  Strauss's  'Life  of  Jesus,'"  and  "  Portions  of  an  Unfinished  Work" 
on  the  general  subject  which  forms  the  title  of  the  book.  The  pub- 
lication of  these  volumes  has  added  largely  to  the  debt  of  gratitude 
and  reverence  which  is  justly  due  to  him,  as  one  of  the  most  accom- 
plished interpreters  of  the  Christian  records,  and  one  of  the  ablest, 
acutest,  and  most  earnest  defenders  of  the  Christian  revelation  in  oui 
own  or  in  any  age. 


XXXIV  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

that  he  has  left  behind  him  a  complete  translation 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  of  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  translations  of  the 
obscure  portions  of  other  Epistles,  with  a  body  of 
notes,  critical  and  exegetical,  which  must  be  of 
great  value  to  the  student  of  the  Scriptures.  We 
cannot  help  expressing  our  earnest  wish  that  these 
also  may,  if  possible,  be  published  at  some  future 
time,  in  connection,  perhaps,  with  the  articles  of 
which  we  have  already  spoken,  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  Even  the  fragmentary  products  of 
so  clear  and  penetrating  a  mind,  consecrated 
through  life,  to  the  study  of  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures and  the  Christian  revelation,  and  filled  with 
so  devout  a  spirit,  will  be  gladly  welcomed. 

Mr.  Norton's  writings  are  all  impressed  with  the 
same  strongly  marked  qualities,  bearing  the  image 
of  the  man ;  the  same  calm  but  deep  tone  of  re- 
ligious feeling ;  the  same  exalted  seriousness  of 
view,  as  that  of  a  man  in  sight  of  God  and  on  the 
borders  of  eternity  ;  the  same  high  moral  standard  ; 
the  same  transparent  clearness  of  statement ;  the 
same  logical  closeness  of  reasoning ;  the  same 
quiet  earnestness  of  conviction  ;  the  same  sus- 
tained confidence  in  his  conclusions,  resting  as 
they  did,  or  as  he  meant  they  should,  on  solid 
grounds  and  fully  examined  premises;  the  same 
minute  accuracy  and  finish ;  the  same  strict  truth- 
fulness and  sincerity,  saying  nothing  for  mere 
effect.  And  the  style  is  in  harmony  with  the 
thought,  —  pure,  chaste,  lucid,  aptly  expressive, 
unaffected,  uninvolved,  English  undefiled  schol- 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  XXXV 

arly,  yet  never  .pedantic,  strong,  yet  not  hard  or 
dry ;  and,  when  the  subject  naturally  called  for  it, 
clothing  itself  in  the  rich  hues  and  the  beautiful 
forms  of  poetic  fancy,  that  illumined,  while  it 
adorned,  his  thought. 

The  works  of  this  eminent  man  will  be  always 
valuable,  not  only  for  the  treasures  of  learning 
which  they  contain,  and  the  light  which  they 
throw  on  questions  of  the  deepest  importance  to 
every  thinking  man  and  every  Christian  theolo- 
gian, but  for  the  instructive  example  which  they 
present  of  rare  virtues,  never  more  needed  than  in 
this  age  of  hurry  and  excitement.  They  furnish 
lessons  to  the  scholar  and  the  student  which  he 
will  do  well  to  ponder  and  profit  by  ;  —  lessons  of 
patience,  of  persevering  research,  of  scrupulous 
accuracy,  of  thorough  and  independent  investiga- 
tion, and  of  a  conscientious  slowness  in  the  pub- 
lication of  facts  and  opinions  which  can  be  prop- 
erly established  only  by  long  and  diligent  inquiry. 
He  did  not  believe  in  any  intuitional  knowledge, — 
knowledge  snatched  up  in  a  day  and  by  hasty 
glances  into  the  written  or  the  unwritten  page  of 
truth.  He  did  not  believe  that  there  is  any  royal 
road  to  solid  and  trustworthy  learning,  —  any  road 
to  it  except  the  old  one,  as  old  as  man, — the  beaten 
path  of  patient  study,  toiling  on  day  after  day,  year 
after  year.  He  believed  with  Newton,  himself  the 
example  of  what  he  said,  that  it  is  by  concentra- 
tion and  fixedness  of  thought,  by  intent  devotion 
to  its  subject,  more  than  by  native  genius,  that  the 
best  and  greatest  results  are  to  be  wrought  out 


XXXVI  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

He  thought  it  much  better  to  do  a  little,  and  to  do 
it  well  and  thoroughly,  than  to  do  a  great  deal 
poorly.  He  was  therefore  in  no  hurry  to  throw  oft 
into  the  seething  world  a  multitude  of  books.  He 
had  no  ambition  to  shine  as  a  writer  and  to  keep 
himself  in  the  world's  eye.  Apparently,  he  wa^ 
quite  indifferent  to  the  kind  of  fame  to  which  so 
many  aspire.  He  had  nobler  aims.  He  cherishev1 
a  wiser  ambition.  He  cared  little  for  present  pop 
ularity,  he  wrote  for  permanent  effect  and  lasting 
usefulness.  And  thus  year  after  year  passed  awa\ 
in  the  faithful  endeavor  to  give  greater  complete- 
ness to  the  work  before  him,  or  to  verify  its  state- 
ments, or  to  supply  some  missing  link  in  the  argu 
ment,  or  to  correct  some  minor  blemish  that  might 
have  crept  in,  until  he  could  in  some  degree  satisfy 
his  severe  taste,  his  high  sense  of  responsibility, 
and  his  conscientious  love  of  the  perfect  truth.  It 
is  easy  enough  to  make  a  book  ;  but  he  wished  to 
make  a  book  worth  making  and  worth  keeping. 
And  this  to  one  of  so  high  a  standard,  of  so  fas- 
tidious a  taste,  of  so  self-exacting  a  love  of  accu- 
racy and  completeness,  and  of  so  conscientious  a 
purpose,  was  not  easy.  But  the  slow  ripening  of 
his  mental  harvests  was  amply  compensated  by 
the  final  richness  of  the  product.  It  would  be 
well,  in  this  surfeiting  age  of  half-made  books,  it 
more  would  follow  the  example. 

Mr.  Norton's  position  as  a  theologian  has  al- 
ready been  intimated,  in  the  general  account  which 
we  have  given  of  his  writings  arid  labors.  But  it 
claims  a  more  distinct  and  extended  notice.  It 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  XXXV]  I 

is  an  extremely  interesting  one;  and  one  too  for 
which,  judged  by  its  motives,  even  those  who  stood 
in  opposition  to  him  on  either  side  must  yield  him 
their  respect,  as  we  do  our  grateful  admiration. 
The  true  key  to  that  position  is  found  in  his 
strong  faith,  beating  through  every  pulse  of  his 
life,  in  the  divine  mission  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  in 
his  profound  conviction  of  the  supreme  importance 
of  the  Christian  revelation  to  all  the  best  hopes  of 
mankind.  Misname  him  who  will,  if  ever  there 
was  a  believer  in  Christ,  it  was  he.  He  was  a 
believer  with  the  head  and  with  the  heart  too. 
He  was  as  fully  persuaded  of  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity as  of  his  own  existence.  The  Gospel, — 
the  Gospel  of  Christ,  and  not  the  Gospel  of  Cal- 
vin, —  the  Gospel,  as  it  came  fresh  from  heaven  in 
its  own  native  beauty  and  power,  was  in  his  eyes 
the  most  precious  gift  of  the  Good  Father.  And 
under  this  conviction,  he  felt  it  to  be  the  work  ol 
his  life,  the  work  to  which  God  called  him,  to  de- 
fend the  Christian  revelation,  and  to  set  forth  its 
heavenly  character,  with  all  the  power  which  his 
Maker  had  given  him,  not  only  against  the  assaults 
of  infidelity  and  scepticism  without,  but  against 
the  undesigned  yet  perilous  treachery  within.  He, 
with  a  jealous  care  for  the  safety  of  the  priceless 
treasure,  stood  on  the  watch  to  keep  it  intact,  on 
which  side  soever  the  enemy  might  approach ;  and 
by  his  words  of  wisdom,  not  always  heeded  as 
they  should  have  been,  he  threw  new  bulwarks 
around  the  faith  that  he  loved  with  a  strength  of 
feeling  proportioned  to  his  strength  of  mind. 


BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 


With  this  intense  faith,  shining  through  his 
powerful  intellect,  burning  in  his  pure  heart,  and 
ever  urging  him  on  with  a  calm  but  mighty  im- 
pulse, he  entered  on  his  career,  and  pursued  it 
consistently,  through  all  the  different  phases  of  his 
life,  to  the  end  ;  whether,  as  he  best  liked>  he 
quietly  labored  by  himself  in  the  mine  of  truth, 
seeking  goodly  treasure  and  pearls  for  his  Master, 
or,  at  his  Master's  call,  girded  on  his  armor  for  the 
battle,  and  fearlessly  laid  siege  to  the  intrenched 
errors  of  the  past,  or  with  equal  chivalry  went  out 
to  meet  the  novel  errors,  home-born  or  of  foreign 
race,  that  he  saw  springing  up  among  us  under 
the  very  walls  of  the  temple  of  Christ.  He  was 
both  a  Reformer  and  a  Conservative,  as  every 
wise  and  good  man  must  be,  who  in  the  spirit  of 
Paul  resolves  to  prove  all  things,  but  to  hold  fast 
that  which  is  good  and  true.  At  his  very  first  ap- 
pearance in  the  theological  arena,  he  was  a  bold, 
zealous,  uncompromising  assailant  of  the  Ortho- 
doxy of  the  time.  He  as  fearlessly  maintained  his 
views,  as  he  had  carefully  and  conscientiously  es- 
poused them.  "  Nee  temere  nee  timide"  was  the 
motto  which  he  placed  over  the  opening  article  of 
his  first  editorial  work,  and  which  he  bore  upon  his 
banner  through  life.  He  stood  ready  to  avow  and 
to  defend  what  he  believed  ;  and  he  proved  him- 
self as  able  as  he  was  ready,  uniting  all  the  cour- 
age of  Luther  with  all  the  scholarship  of  Erasmus. 
While  others,  from  love  of  peace,  or  fear  of  giving 
offence,  chose  to  maintain  what  seemed  to  them  a 
justifiable  and  prudent  reserve,  he  spoke  out  boldly 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  XXXIX 

and  fully  the  conclusions  to  which  he  had  deliber- 
ately come.  In  his  doctrinal  views  he  was  no  half- 
way man,  —  no  double-minded  one  ;  and  in  his 
phraseology  there  was  a  studious  avoidance  of  that 
vague  mistiness  of  language,  which  is  sometimes 
used  as  a  reconciling  veil,  and  is  sometimes  the 
cover  of  confused  and  cloudy  ideas.  Whenever  he 
had  occasion  to  express  his  opinions,  he  expressed 
them  without  obscurity  and  without  reservation. 

As  a  champion  of  Liberal  Christianity,  Mr.  Nor- 
ton stands,  as  a  writer,  unquestionably  foremost 
in  the  field.  In  the  important  controversy  under 
which  its  battles  were  fought  at  the  commence- 
ment of  this  century,  his  was  the  leading  mind. 
He  furnished  the  strong  weapons  of  argument  and 
learning  by  which  it  best  maintained  its  ground. 
Others  who  stood  at  his  side  had  more  of  the  gift 
of  popular  speech  :  his  was  the  word  of  knowl- 
edge and  of  wisdom.  He  was  the  Moses  in  the 
Exodus  from  the  orthodox  realm ;  Dr.  Channing, 
the  Aaron.  The  one  was  the  eloquent  rhetorician 
and  advocate  ;  the  other,  the  profound  scholar  and 
thinker  and  sure  interpreter  of  the  sacred  word. 
But  this  zealous  Reformer  for  Christ  and  the  Gos- 
pel's sake  was  a  no  less  zealous  Conservative  for 
Christ  and  the  Gospel's  sake,  when  the  time  called. 
And  there  was  no  inconsistency  in  his  course,  any 
more  than  in  that  of  the  leader  of  old,  when,  hav- 
.ng  shaken  off  the  bondage  of  Pharaoh,  he  with- 
stood the  innovations  of  Korah.  In  one  case,  he 
fought  against  ancient  errors  ;  in  the  other,  against 
the  new.  In  both,  he  was  contending,  as  he  be- 


Xl  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

lieved,  for  the  eternal  truth,  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus 
When  at  a  more  recent  period  he  wrote  and  pub 
lished  his  views  concerning  the  modern  rationalism 
and  infidelity  whose  seeds,  imported  from  the  Old 
World,  had  struck  root  and  were  springing  up  in 
the  New,  —  when  he  strove  to  tear  up  the  poison- 
ous root,  hidden  under  the  perfumed  flowers,  and 
to  put  the  Church  and  the  community  on  their 
guard  against  it,  —  he  was  animated  by  the  same 
spirit  which  had  moved  him  from  the  beginning. 
He  made  no  bigot's  war  upon  liberty  of  thought 
and  speech,  but  he  had  a  right,  and  he  felt  himself 
bound,  to  unmask  and  to  resist  those  doctrines  and 
speculations  which  were  leading,  as  he  thought,  to 
infidelity.  As  his  hostility  to  Calvinism  was  the 
side-growth  of  his  love  to  Christ  and  his  love  to 
God,  so  his  severity  against  Straussism  and  Spi- 
nozism  was  but  one  of  the  offshoots  of  his  rever- 
ence for  the  Saviour  and  his  faith  in  the  Gospel. 
It  was  the  severity  of  an  honest  conviction,  as 
honestly  expressed,  of  the  pernicious  tendency  oi 
the  views  which  he  opposed.  He  believed  them 
to  be,  not  only  wholly  unsound,  but,  whether  so 
intended  or  not,  hostile  to  Christianity,  betraying 
it,  like  Judas,  with  a  kiss,  and  in  their  tendencies 
finally  destructive  of  all  religious  faith.  Without 
entering  at  all  into  the  question  of  the  soundness 
or  unsoundness  of  the  views  against  which  Mr. 
Norton  uttered  his  sincere  and  solemn  warning, 
we  think  that  all  must  admit  the  long-sighted 
sagacity  with  which  he  foresaw  the  results  of  the 
tone  of  thinking  then  beginning  to  show  itself  in 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  xli 

various  forms, — the  wisely  prophetic  ken  with 
which  he  announced  the  direction  and  final  de- 
velopments of  the  new  school  of  German  specula- 
tion. Just  what  he  predicted  came  to  pass. 

But  in  all  his  labors  and  conflicts,  in  his  attack 
on  the  "  Latest  Form  of  Infidelity,"  as  well  as  in 
his  "Defence  of  Liberal  Christianity,"  in  his  la- 
borious, life-continued  study  and  exposition  of  the 
"  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels," 
and  in  his  faithful,  never-satisfied  endeavors,  per- 
severed in  to  the  very  last,  to  unfold  the  true  mean- 
ing of  those  Gospels,  and  to  clothe  them  in  our 
own  language  in  a  form  in  which  their  beauty 
and  power  may  be  best  seen,  and  the  majesty  of 
the  Saviour's  life  shine  out  in  its  own  undimmed 
light,  he  pursued  a  nobly  consistent  career.  His 
profound  faith  in  the  Christian  revelation,  his  in- 
tense conviction  of  its  inestimable  value,  was,  we 
repeat,  the  harmonizing  key  of  his  life. 

But  Mr.  Norton  was  not  only  an  accomplished 
theologian,  a  powerful  controversialist,  a  learned 
and  indefatigable  critic,  a  most  able  and  zealous 
defender  of  the  Christian  revelation,  a  profound 
and  original  expositor  both  of  the  meaning  of  its 
records  and  the  evidences  of  their  truth;  he  was 
also  one  of  the  pioneers  of  literary  progress  in  this 
country,  a  man  of  letters,  interested  in  the  advance- 
ment of  all  good  learning.  He  was  a  strong  and 
graceful  writer  on  other  subjects  besides  those 
which  formed  the  chief  occupation  of  his  life. 
He  had  a  vein  of  fine  poetic  talent  also,  occasion- 
ally exercised  in  his  earlier  days  and  in  his  inter- 
4* 


Xlii  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

vals  of  leisure,  but  only  enough  to  open  a  glimpse 
of  the  wealth  within.  The  few  specimens  which 
he  has  left  behind  are  gems  of  rare  lustre,  finished 
of  their  kind.  Apart  from  their  beauty  of  thought 
and  expression,  they  have  a  higher  value  derived 
from  a  higher  source.  The  well-known  "  Lines 
written  after  a  Summer  Shower,"  which  originally 
appeared  in  the  first  volume  of  the  Christian  Dis- 
ciple, are  among  the  most  beautiful  in  the  lan- 
guage. The  hymn  of  resignation,  beginning  with 
the  words, 

"  My  God,  I  thank  thee  !  may  no  thought 
E'er  deem  thy  chastisements  severe," 

is  a  favorite  one  in  our  churches,  and  has  soothed 
many  a  grief-stricken  spirit.  He  did  a  good  greater 
than  he  could  know  when  he  wrote  it  out  of  his 
own  experience  to  be  as  angel  music  to  the 
mourner.  Another,  written  by  him  to  a  friend 
in  bereavement,  beginning, 

"  Oh,  stay  thy  tears  !  for  they  are  blest, 
Whose  days  are  past,  whose  toil  is  done," 

is  in  a  similar  spirit  and  of  similar  beauty. 

Whenever  we  read  the  scattered  effusions  of  his 
Christian  muse,*  we  are  tempted  to  lament  that  he 
has  left  us  so  few  of  these  polished  diamonds  of 
thought,  till  we  remember  that  he  was  in  quest  of 
other  and  larger  treasures,  hidden  in  the  mine. 
He  had  but  one  life  to  work  with  ;  and  it  must 
select  its  prize,  leaving  the  rest,  however  bright 
and  sparkling,  unsought,  or  with  now  and  then  a 

*  Thesa  were  collected  into  a  small  volume  in  1853,  and  a  few 
copies  printed  for  private  distribution  amon^  his  friends 


OF    MR.    NORTON. 


passing  glance  and  touch.  And  yet  the  little  that 
he  did  in  this  way  shows  how  much  good  even  a 
little  well  done  may  do,  when  it  is  cast  in  beauti- 
ful forms. 

But  we  pass  on  to  what  is  much  greater  in  God's 
eye  than  any  work  of  genius,  however  brilliant,  or 
any  product  of  thought,  however  elaborate  and 
mature.  Mr.  Norton's  character  and  life  were 
marked  by  the  high  virtues,  the  fruits  of  a  Chris- 
tian faith,  whose  rich  aroma  breathes  through  his 
written  works. 

To  say  that  he  had  none  of  "those  infirmities 
which,"  to  use  his  own  words,  "  have  clung  to  the 
best  and  wisest,"  would  be  ascribing  to  him  a 
perfection  which  has  belonged  to  but  one  who  has 
lived  on  the  earth.  To  say  that  he  never  erred  in 
opinion  or  in  action,  would  be  to  say  what  no  man 
can  venture  to  say  of  himself  or  of  any  other. 
Certainly  he,  who  was  truth  itself,  would  claim 
no  such  exemption  from  human  frailty.  But 
towering  above  these  errors  and  infirmities,  what- 
ever they  were,  which,  however  magnified  to  the 
fault-finding  eye,  disappeared  from  the  friend's, 
there  were  virtues  which  the  world  will  not  will- 
ingly let  die,  and  which  will  make  him  still  a 
blessing  to  it  in  death,  as  he  was  a  benefactor  to 
it  in  life.  And  that  which  we  think  would  be  first 
and  above  all  remembered  by  those  who  had  the 
happiness  to  enjoy  his  friendship  and  to  listen  to 
his  wise  discourse,  whether  in  the  lecture-room  or 
in  his  delightful  home,  was  the  peculiar  devout- 
ness  of  his  spirit,  —  the  profoundly  religious  tone 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE 

of  thought  and  of  sentiment  which  seemed  to 
form  the  atmosphere  in  which  he  lived,  —  the 
unformal,  unostentatious,  but  deep  piety,  so  per- 
fectly sincere  and  unaffected,  that  made  his  pres- 
ence like  the  air  of  a  temple,  —  the  ever-present 
sense  of  those  higher  relations  in  which  we  stand 
to  God  and  to  eternity,  springing  naturally  out 
of  that  strong  faith  in  Christ  and  in  his  truth 
which  had  struck  down  its  roots  into  his  whole 
being. 

No  man  could  be  at  all  intimate  with  him,  or  be 
brought  into  near  communication  with  him,  either 
as  a  friend  or  a  pupil,  without  receiving  religious 
impressions  such  as  few  men  whom  we  have 
known  have  the  power  to  impart.  There  was 
something  mightier  than  any  common  eloquence, 
which  entered  into  the  hearer's  soul  and  led  it  by 
a  calm  and  spiritual  force  into  the  presence  of  God 
and  of  things  unseen  and  eternal.  And  this  high 
religiousness  of  spirit  —  born  of  his  vital  Christian 
faith  —  was  seen  in  union  with  other  virtues  which 
are  the  proper  fruits  of  that  faith.  Purity  of  heart, 
singleness  of  purpose,  devotion  to  duty,  integrity 
of  dealing,  perfect  openness  and  honorableness  in 
all  the  affairs  of  life,  marked  his  whole  career. 
Truth  —  truth  in  thought,  truth  in  speech,  truth 
in  manner,  truth  in  conduct — shone  through  his 
life.  He  especially  honored  it  in  others ;  it  made 
a  vital  part  of  his  own  being.  All  shams  and  false- 
hoods, all  equivocations  and  manoeuvring,  all  forms 
of  cant  and  hypocrisy,  and  all  affectations  of  every 
kind,  were  therefore  peculiarly  offensive  to  hie 


OF    MR.    NORTON.  XIV 

sincere  and  upright  spirit.  And  in  close  union,  as 
it  commonly  is,  with  his  perfect  truthfulness,  was 
that  Christian  courage  which  dares  always  to 
choose  its  own  course  and  to  carry  it  out  without 
asking  leave  except  of  conscience.  He  held  de- 
cided opinions  upon  every  important  subject  that 
bears  upon  human  life  and  duty  in  all  a  man's 
public  and  private  relations,  and  he  acted  upon 
them.  He  did  not  fear  to  differ  from  others,  or  to 
walk  apart  from  others ;  — 

"Nor  number  nor  example  with  him  wrought 
To  swerve  from  truth,  or  change  his  constant  mind, 
Though  single." 

Without  any  false  pride  of  singularity,  he  cherished 
a  self-relying  independence  of  thought  and  of  ac- 
tion. As  in  his  religious  views  and  his  religious 
course,  so  in  all  other  things  he  judged  and  acted 
for  himself:  and  judged  and  acted  from  high  prin- 
ciples fearlessly  applied.  He  sought  to  try  each 
case  at  the  tribunal  of  a  thoroughly  Christianized 
reason,  and  to  follow  out  what  he  accepted  as  its 
final  decisions.  We  need  not  say  that  he  always 
did  what  was  best,  but  we  may  say,  what  is  in 
truth  greater  praise,  that  he  always  did  what  he 
thought  was  right 

But  his  independence  was  not  a  selfish  or  cold- 
hearted  independence.  It  was  united  with  the 
truest  and  warmest  kindness,  when  that  kindness 
was  called  for.  His  retired  habits,  the  habits  of 
a  student  and  scholar,  —  the  individuality  of  his 
character  and  life,  —  his  slowness  and  reserve  of 
manner,  —  his  occasional  severity  of  speech,  —  the 


xlvi  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 

flashes  of  a  pure  and  just  indignation  against 
some  act  of  folly,  meanness,  or  misconduct,  —  his 
decided  and  stern  condemnation  of  opinions  which 
he  held  to  be  false  and  dangerous,  —  were  not  con- 
nected with  any  want  of  Christian  tenderness  or 
Christian  sympathy.  It  was  a  part  of  his  creed, 
and  one  of  the  first  lessons  which  his  pupils  in  the 
Christian  ministry  learned  from  him,  that  timely 
reproof  is  often  the  truest  friendship ;  that  the  ex 
posure  of  error,  and  the  cure  of  it  by  the  needed 
caustic  of  sharp  and  plain-spoken  truth,  may  be 
the  highest  charity.  But  those  who  knew  him 
best  knew  the  real  warmth  of  his  heart  and  the 
real  kindness  —  the  kindness  both  of  feeling  and 
of  principle  —  which  were  sometimes  hidden  from 
a  stranger's  eye  by  the  peculiarities  of  his  manner. 
He  was  no  ascetic,  no  declaimer  against  the  inno- 
cent festivities  of  the  world,  no  morose  hater  or 
proud  scorner  of  its  pleasant  triflings,  no  misan- 
thrope, shunning  converse  with  men.  If  he  min- 
gled little  in  the  gayer  scenes  of  society,  it  wa& 
more  from  his  engrossment  in  the  studies  that 
occupied  his  thoughts,  and  from  the  want  of  a 
quick  flow  of  animal  spirits,  than  from  any  unso- 
cial feeling.  As  a  friend,  a  neighbor,  a  citizen,  he 
was 'ever  prompt  to  do  his  part.  His  hand  was 
always  open  to  every  work  of  charity.  He  knew 
the  Christian  blessedness  of  giving.  His  generous 
consideration  of  others,  his  readiness  to  help  when- 
ever his  help  was  needed,  his  benevolence  to  the 
poor,  ever  guided  by  his  strong  good-sense,  hia 
judicious  and  thoughtful  kindness  in  all  the  varied 


OF    MR.    NORTON. 


occasions  of  life,  his  quiet  and  unostentatious  chari- 
ties, will  be  remembered  by  many  who  shared  in 
them.  They  were  much  better  known  to  himself 
than  to  the  world.  His  alms  were  not  done  to  be 
seen  of  men. 

But  it  was  on  the  nearer  circle  around  him,  on 
the  Christian  home  in  which  he  lived,  that  his 
strong  and  tender  affections  beamed  out  most 
brightly  and  warmly.  What  he  was  there,  where 
the  true  character  most  fully  shows  itself,  they 
know  whose  loss  is  the  greatest,  and  whose  grief 
will  be  ever  mingled  with  gratitude  for  the  great 
blessings  which  they  have  enjoyed  in  the  privileges 
of  his  society,  in  the  tenderness  of  his  love,  in  the 
wisdom  of  his  counsels,  in  the  Christian  influence 
of  his  conversation  and  his  life.  To  them  his 
memory  will  be  peculiarly  blessed,  for  it  will  be 
associated,  not  only  with  the  tenderest,  most  deli- 
cate, most  sympathizing  love,  but  with  the  highest, 
holiest,  happiest  influences,  —  influences  that  do 
not  end  at  the  grave.  No  man  had  more  exalted 
views  than  he  of  the  duties  and  the  happiness  of 
domestic  life,  and  of  the  place  which  Christianity 
should  hold  in  it. 

We  know  how  difficult  it  is  to  draw  an  unbi- 
assed portrait,  in  all  points  true  to  the  life,  of  one 
in  whom  we  have  a  personal  interest,  or  whose 
name  is  identified  with  the  religious  faith  which 
is  as  father  and  mother  to  our  hearts.  In  that 
which  we  have  attempted,  we  have  at  least  wished 
to  avoid  the  exaggeration  which  in  everything  the 
subject  of  it  so  greatly  disliked.  But  it  seems  to 


BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE 


us,  as  we  look  upon  it  again,  that  a  word  more 
may  be  necessary  to  place  it  in  its  full  light,  and 
to  give  its  features  their  true  and  best  expression. 
We  believe  that,  on  certain  points  of  character,  a 
false  impression  exists  in  the  minds  of  some  who 
did  not  know  him  intimately.  He  was  on  some 
accounts  in  danger  of  being  misunderstood  and 
misjudged.  In  this,  however,  he  shared  the  lot  of 
many  others,  whom  the  world  sees  through  a  glass 
darkly.  Every  virtue  has  its  shadow  mocking  it. 
The  near  friend  sees  the  virtue  ;  the  distant  or 
the  fault-seeking  eye  may  catch  only  the  distorted 
shadow.  A  man  of  strong  thoughts  and  strong 
feelings,  Mr.  Norton  spoke  strongly  the  truth  that 
was  in  his  heart.  When  he  aimed  a  blow  at  an 
unsound  doctrine  or  a  dangerous  error,  he  did  not 
strike  with  the  sword  in  the  sheath.  He  did  not 
attack  it  with  roundabout  phrases  or  with  soft 
innuendo.  What  he  said,  he  said  in  plain  Eng- 
lish, never  coarse  indeed,  but  sometimes  caustic, 
always  open  and  sincere.  He  was  "a  good 
hater  "  ;  not  of  persons,  however,  but  of  the  false 
opinions  with  which  those  persons  were  identified, 
of  which  they  were  in  his  mind  the  living  expo- 
nents. He  was  a  man  of  very  decided  convic- 
tions, and  not  a  man  given  to  compromises  in 
important  matters.  What  he  thought  right  to  be 
done  or  to  be  said,  he  went  forward  to  do  or  to 
eay  ;  alone,  if  necessary.  He  was  not  at  all  studious 
of  the  arts  of  popularity.  From  the  course  and 
habits  of  his  life  he  was  secluded  from  that  free 
personal  intercourse  with  others  of  opposite  opin- 


OF    MR.    NORTON. 

ions  which  is  necessary  to  a  perfect  understanding 
on  either  side.  Hence,  those  who  came  into  col- 
lision with  him,  and  those  who  saw  him  at  a  dis- 
tance in  those  situations  in  which  the  strong  and 
sharp  points  of  his  character  were  made  to  pro- 
trude, would  be  likely  to  do  him  injustice.  A 
stranger  or  an  opponent  might  sometimes,  from 
their  point  of  view,  imagine  him  to  be  deficient  in 
the  softer  and  meeker  virtues.  The  friend  at  his 
side,  seeing  him  as  he  was,  knew  that  nothing 
could  be  farther  from  the  truth.  Under  the  con- 
stitutional coldness  and  restraint  of  his  manner, 
and  the  stateliness  and  occasional  sternness  of  his 
speech,  there  was  a  deep  enthusiasm  of  character, 
a  sincere  warmth  of  feeling,  the  truest  and  most 
considerate  tenderness.  A  person  living  with  him 
or  in  intimate  connection  with  him  would  be  par- 
ticularly struck  with  his  gentleness,  indulgence,  and 
quick  human  sympathies ;  he  would  see  as  much 
in  him  of  the  John,  as  others  had  seen  of  the  Paul. 
If  he  was  ever  severe  towards  any,  it  was  from  the 
love  which  he  bore  to  religion  and  to  truth.  If  he 
erred,  in  word  or  in  deed,  his  errors  were  the  errors 
of  a  true-hearted  and  true-spoken  man. 

A  most  pure  and  gifted  spirit  has  gone  from  us 
to  join  the  host  that  "  have  crossed  the  flood." 
He  has  ascended  from,  the  study  of  God's  word 
and  works  in  this  lower  world,  where,  with  all  his 
knowledge,  he  could  know  but  in  part,  to  the 
study  of  God's  word  and  works  in  that  more 
glorious  sphere,  where,  with  Buckminster  and 
Eliot,  he  will  know  even  as  he  is  known. 

5 


1  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTICE    OF    R/R.    NORTON. 

The  hymn,*  little  known,  we  believe,  which  he 
composed  many  years  ago  for  the  Christian's 
dirge,  was  written  unconsciously  for  his  own 
funeral.  It  now  chants  for  us,  as  we  stand  in 
spirit  at  his  grave,  the  farewell  of  many  hearts 
that  honor  and  bless  his  memory. 

"  He  has  gone  to  his  God ;  he  has  gone  to  his  home ; 
No  more  amid  peril  and  error  to  roam. 
His  eyes  are  no  longer  dim, 

His  feet  no  more  will  falter  j 
No  grief  can  follow  him, 
No  pang  his  cheek  can  alter. 

a  There  are  paleness,  and  weeping,  and  sighs  below , 
For  our  faith  is  faint,  and  our  tears  will  flow  : 
But  the  harps  of  heaven  are  ringing ; 

Glad  angels  come  to  greet  him  j 
And  hymns  of  joy  are  singing, 

While  old  friends  press  to  meet  him. 

"  O  honored,  belov6d  !  to  earth  unconfined, 
Thou  hast  soared  on  high,  th'ou  hast  left  us  behind ; 
But  our  parting  is  not  for  ever : 

We  will  follow  thee,  by  heaven's  light, 
Where  the  grave  cannot  dissever 
The  souls  whom  God  will  unite." 


*  His  first  contribution  to  the  Christian  Examiner,  and  the  first  of 
its  poetical  articles.    Vol.  I  p.  39. 


STATEMENT  OF   REASONS. 


PREFACE. 


IN  tlie  year  1819,  I  published  an  article  in  a 
periodical  work,*  of  which  a  number  of  copies 
were  struck  off  separately  under  the  title  that 
I  have  given  to  this  volume.  I  have  since  been 
requested  to  reprint  it,  and  some  years  ago 
undertook  to  revise  and  make  some  additions 
to  it  for  that  purpose.  Being,  however,  inter- 
rupted, I  laid  by  my  papers,  and  had  given  up 
the  intention,  at  least  for  an  indefinite  time. 
But  having  lately  received  an  application  from 
a  highly  esteemed  friend,  strongly  urging  its 
republication,  I  resumed  the  task;  and  the 
result  has  been,  that  I  have  written  a  new 
work,  preserving  indeed  the  title  of  the  for- 
mer, and  embodying  a  great  part  of  its  con- 
tents, but  extending  to  three  times  its  size. 

I  have  said, "  I  resumed  the  task  " ;  and  the 

•  [Tho  Christ! nn  Disciple.  See  Vol.  I.  New  Series,  pp.  370 -431. 
The  article  referred  to  was  occasioned  by  Professor  Stuart's  Letters 
to  Dr.  Channing.] 


4  PREFACE. 

expression  is  appropriate,  for  the  discussion  is 
one  in  which  no  scholar  or  intellectual  man 
can,  at  the  present  day,  engage  with  alacrity. 
To  the  great  body  of  enlightened  individuals 
in  all  countries,  to  the  generality  of  those  who 
on  every  subject  but  theology  are  the  guides 
of  public  opinion,  it  would  be  as  incongruous 
to  address  an  argument  against  the  Trinity,  as 
an  argument  against  transubstantiation,  or  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  or  the  supremacy  of 
the  Pope,  or  the  divine  right  of  kings.  These 
doctrines,  once  subjects  of  fierce  contention, 
are  all,  in  their  view,  equally  obsolete.  To 
disprove  the  Trinity  will  appear,  to  many  of 
whom  I  speak,  a  labor  as  idle  and  unprofit- 
able as  the  confutation  of  any  other  of  those 
antiquated  errors ;  and  to  engage  in  the  task 
may  seem  to  imply  a  theologian's  ignorance  of 
the  opinions  of  the  world,  and  the  preposter- 
ous and  untimely  zeal  of  a  recluse  student, 
believing  that  the  dogmas  of  his  books  still 
rule  the  minds  of  men.  It  would  be  difficult 
to.  find  a  recognition  of  the  existence  of  this 
doctrine  in  any  work  of  the  present  day  of  es- 
tablished reputation,  not  professedly  theologi- 
cal. All  mention  of  it  is  by  common  consent 
excluded  from  the  departments  of  polite  litera- 
ture, moral  science,  and  natural  religion ;  and 


PREFACE. 


oral^^^^^^>^ 


from  discussions,  written  or 
sectarian,  intended  to  affect  men's  belief,  or 
conduct.  Should  an  allusion  to  it  occur  in 
any  such  production,  it  would  be  regarded  as 
a  trait  of  fanaticism,  or  as  discovering  a  mere 
secular  respect  for  some  particular  church.  It 
is  scarcely  adverted  to,  except  in  works  pro- 
fessedly theological  ;  and  theology,  the  noblest 
and  most  important  branch  of  philosophy,  has 
been  brought  into  disrepute,  so  far,  at  least,  as 
it  treats  of  the  doctrines  of  revealed  religion, 
by  a  multitude  of  writers,  who  have  seized 
upon  this  branch  of  it  as  their  peculiar  prov- 
ince, and  who  have  been  anything  but  philos- 
ophers. 

Why,  then,  argue  against  a  doctrine,  which 
among  intelligent  men  has  fallen  into  neglect 
and  disbelief?  I  answer,  that  the  neglect  and 
disbelief  of  this  doctrine,  and  of  other  doctrines 
of  like  character,  has  extended  to  Christianity 
itself.  It  is  from  the  public  professions  of 
nations  calling  themselves  Christian,  from  the 
established  creeds  and  liturgies  of  different 
churches  or  sects,  and  from  the  writings  of 
those  who  have  been  reputed  orthodox  in 
their  day,  that  most  men  derive  their  notions 
of  Christianity.  But  the  treaties  of  European 
nations  still  begin  with  a  solemn  appeal  to  the 


6  PREFACE. 

"  Most  Holy  Trinity  " ;  the  doctrine  is  still  the 
professed  faith  of  every  established  church, 
and,  as  far  as  I  know,  of  every  sect  which 
makes  a  creed  its  bond  of  communion ;  and  if 
any  one  should  recur  to  books,  he  would  find 
it  presented  as  an  all-important  distinction  of 
Christianity  by  far  the  larger  portion  of  di 
vines.  It  is,  in  consequence,  viewed  by  most 
men,  more  or  less  distinctly,  as  a  part  of  Chris- 
tianity. In  connection  with  other  doctrines,  as 
false  and  more  pernicious,  it  has  been  moulded 
into  systems  of  religious  belief,  which  have 
been  publicly  and  solemnly  substituted  in  the 
place  of  true  religion.  These  systems  have 
counteracted  the  whole  evidence  of  divine  reve- 
lation. The  proof  of  the  most  important  fact 
in  the  history  of  mankind,  that  the  truths  of 
religion  have  not  been  left  to  be  doubtfully 
and  dimly  discerned,  but  have  been  made 
known  to  us  by  God  himself,  has  been  over- 
borne and  rendered  ineffectual  by  the  nature 
of  the  doctrines  ascribed  to  God.  Hence  it 
is,  that  in  many  parts  of  Europe  scarcely  an 
intelligent  and  well-informed  Christian  is  left. 
It  has  seemed  as  idle  to  inquire  into  the  evi- 
dences of  those  systems  which  passed  under 
the  name  of  Christianity,  as  into  the  proof  of 
the  incarnations  of  Vishnuv  or  the  divine  mis- 


PREFACE.  7 

sion  of  Mahomet.  Nothing  of  the  true  char- 
acter of  our  religion,  nothing  attesting  its 
descent  from  Heaven,  was  to  be  discovered 
amid  the  corruptions  of  the  prevailing  faith. 
On  the  contrary,  they  were  so  marked  with 
falsehood  and  fraud,  they  so  clearly  discovered 
the  baseness  of  their  earthly  origin,  that,  when 
imposed  upon  men  as  the  peculiar  doctrines 
of  Christianity,  those  who  regarded  them  as 
such  were  fairly  relieved  from  the  necessity 
of  inquiring,  whether  they  had  been  taught  by 
God.  The  internal  evidence  of  Christianity 
was  annihilated ;  and  all  other  evidence  is 
wasted,  when  applied  to  prove  that  such  doc- 
trines have  been  revealed  from  Heaven. 

It  is  true  that  in  England,  in  some  parts  of 
Continental  Europe,  and  in  our  own  country,  a 
large  majority  still  desire  the  name  of  Chris- 
tians, and  have  a  certain  interest  in  what  they 
esteem  Christianity.  Notwithstanding  much 
infidelity  and  skepticism,  more  or  less  openly 
avowed,  and  notwithstanding  that  many,  who 
call  themselves  Christians,  regard  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ  only  as  containing,  when  rightly 
understood,  an  excellent  system  of  doctrines 
and  duties,  without  ascribing  to  it  more  than 
human  authority,  yet  there  still  exists  much 
sincere  and  enlightened,  as  well  as  much  tra- 


8  PREFACE. 

ditionary  faith  in  Christianity,  as  a  revelation 
from  God.  In  the  Protestant  countries  to 
which  I  have  referred,  there  has  been  great 
freedom  of  inquiry  into  its  character;  wise 
and  good  men  have  labored  to  vindicate  it 
from  misrepresentations;  its  evidences  have 
been  forcibly  stated;  the  more  obnoxious 
doctrines  connected  with  it  in  the  popular 
creeds  have  not  of  late,  except  in  this  coun- 
try, been  zealously  obtruded  upon  notice; 
the  moral  character  required  by  it  has  been 
partially  at  least  understood  and  inculcated  ; 
and  imperfectly  and  erroneously  as  our  relig- 
ion may  have  been  taught,  it  has  still  been 
a  main  support  of  public  order  and  private 
morals.  Many  enlightened  men,  therefore, 
who  have  taken  only  a  general  view  of  the 
subject,  and  have  never  given  their  time  or 
thoughts  to  determine  what  Christianity  really 
is,  regard  the  prevailing  form  of  religion  with 
a  certain  degree  of  respect.  Though  they  may 
disbelieve  many  of  its  doctrines,  and  have  never 
separated  in  their  own  minds  what  is  true  from 
what  is  false,  they  think  it,  notwithstanding, 
the  part  of  a  prudent  and  benevolent  man  to 
let  the  whole  pass  in  silence.  They  either  do 
not  advert  to  Christianity  at  all ;  or  if  they  do, 
it  is  in  ambiguous,  though  respectful  term*, 


PREFACE.  9 

and  they  refrain  from  implying  eithei  their 
belief  or  their  disbelief  of  what  are  represented 
as  its  characteristic  doctrines.  There  is  also 
another  class  of  able  and  intellectual  men,  who, 
perceiving  the  value  of  religion  in  general,  sin- 
cerely embrace  the  popular  religion  as  they 
find  it  in  the  creed  of  their  church  or  sect; 
being  bound  to  it,  perhaps,  by  strong  senti- 
ments and  early  associations,  and  believing 
that  he  who  quits  this  harbor  must  embark 
upon  a  sea  of  uncertainties.  They  form  a 
small  exception  to  the  remarks  with  which 
I  commenced,  respecting  the  prevalent  disbe- 
lief of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  other 
similar  doctrines,  by  the  more  intelligent 
classes  of  society ;  —  an  exception  which  does 
not  extend  to  the  ignorant,  or  bigoted,  or 
mercenary  defenders  of  a  church  or  sect. 

But  admitting  these  facts,  what,  after  all,  is 
the  prevailing  state  of  opinion  and  feeling  re- 
specting Christianity  in  Protestant  countries  ? 
It  is  indicated  by  their  literature.  With  some 
considerable  exceptions,  the  productions  of  the 
English  periodical  press  may  be  divided  into 
two  great  classes.  In  one  of  them,  you  rarely 
find  anything  implying  a  sincere  belief  and 
interest  in  Christianity  ;  you  find  much  that 
an  intelligent  Christian  could  not  have  writ- 


10  PREFACE. 

ten;  and  in  some  of  the  publications  to  be 
arranged  in  this  class,  you  find  many  thinly 
veiled  or  naked  expressions  of  scorn  and 
aversion  for  what  passes  under  its  name,  and 
especially  for  the  established  religion  and  its 
ministers.  In  the  other  class,  you  observe  a 
party  and  political  zeal  for  religion,  the  religion 
established  by  law,  "  the  religion  of  a  gentle- 
man," to  borrow  an  expression  from  Charles  the 
Second,  —  a  zeal  for  the  church  and  its  dignities 
and  emoluments,  a  zeal  that  accommodates  itself 
easily  to  a  lax  system  of  morals,  and  which 
rarely  displays  itself  more  than  in  its  contempt 
for  those  who  regard  religion  as  something 
about  which  our  reason  is  to  be  exercised. 
But  beside  these  two  classes  of  publications, 
there  is  still  another,  extensively  circulated, 
below  the  notice,  perhaps,  of  those  who  belong 
to  the  aristocracy  of  literature,  but  which  is 
sapping  the  foundations  of  society ;  a  class  of 
publications  addressed  to  the  lower  orders,  in 
which  Christianity  is  openly  attacked,  being 
made  responsible  for  all  the  wickedness,  fraud, 
oppression,  and  cruelty  that  have  been  perpe- 
trated in  its  name,  and  for  all  the  outrages  upon 
reason  that  have  appeared  in  the  conduct  of  its 
professors,  or  been  embodied  in  creeds.  There 
are  other  proofs  equally  striking  of  the  very 


PREFACE.  11 

general  indifference  that  is  really  felt  toward 
Christianity ;  of  the  little  hold  it  has  upon  men's 
inmost  thoughts  and  affections.  The  most  pop- 
ular English  poet  of  the  day,  who  has  been  the 
object  of  such  passionate  and  ill-judged  admi- 
ration, appeared,  not  merely  as  a  man,  but  as  a 
writer,  under  every  aspect  the  most  adverse  to 
the  Christian  character  ;  yet  the  time  has  been, 
when  his  tide  of  fashion  was  at  its  height,  that 
one  could  hardly  remark  upon  his  immorality 
or  profaneness  without  exposing  himself  to  the 
charge  of  being  narrow-minded  or  hypocritical. 
I  observed  not  long  since,  in  a  noted  journal, 
the  editor  of  which  is  said  to  be  a  Professor  of 
Moral  Philosophy  at  Edinburgh,  that  he  was 
spoken  of  by  a  writer,  fresh  from  the  perusal 
of  his  life  by  Moore,  as  having  been  throughout 
his  whole  course  "  a  noble  being,"  "  morally  and 
intellectually,"  as  all  but  "  the  base  and  blind  " 
must  feel.*  The  patriarch  of  German  litera- 
ture has  just  left  the  world  amid  a  general 
chorus  of  applause  from  his  countrymen,  to 
which  a  dissentient  voice  has  for  some  time 
scarcely  been  tolerated  among  them.  His  pop- 
ularity may  be  compared  with  that  which  Vol- 
taire enjoyed  in  France  during  the  last  century. 

*  The  passage  may  be  found  in  Blackwood's  Magazine  for  Febru- 
ary, 1830,  p.  4 17. 

6 


12  PREFACE. 

There  may  be  different  opinions  respecting  his 
genius.  He  has  nothing  of  the  brilliant  wit  of 
Voltaire,  nor  of  his  keenness  of  remark ;  and 
nothing  of  the  truly  honest  zeal  in  the  cause  of 
humanity,  which  is  sometimes  discovered  by 
that  very  inconsistent  writer.  No  generous  sen- 
timent ever  prompted  Goethe  to  place  himself 
in  imprudent  opposition  to  any  misuse  of  pow- 
er. The  principles  which  are  the  foundation  of 
virtue  and  happiness,  were  to  him  as  though 
they  were  not.  His  strongest  sympathies  were 
not  with  the  higher  feelings  of  our  nature.  In 
his  mind  Christianity  was  on  a  level  with  the 
Pagan  mythology,  except  as  being  of  a  harsher 
and  gloomier  character,  and  possessing  less  po- 
etical beauty.  In  the  Prologue  to  his  Faust, 
he  introduces  in  a  scene,  meant  to  be  ludicrous, 
the  Supreme  Being  as  one  of  his  dramatis  per- 
sonce,  with  as  little  reverence  as  Lucian  shows 
toward  Jupiter.  I  cannot  say  what  there  may 
be  in  his  voluminous  works ;  but  in  those  of  the 
most  note  I  have  never  met  with  the  strong, 
heartfelt  expression  of  a  high  moral  truth  or 
noble  sentiment.  In  reading  some  of  his  more 
popular  productions,  it  may  be  well  to  recollect 
the  words  of  one  incomparably  his  superior: 
Cynicorum  vero  ratio  tota  est  ejicienda  ;  est  enim 
inimica  verecundia^  sine  qua  nihil  rectum  csse 


PREFACE.  13 

potest,  nihil  honestum*  As  regards  the  pro- 
ductions of  such  writers,  it  has  become  the 
cant  of  a  certain  class  of  critics  to  set  aside  the 
consideration  of  their  influence  upon  men's 
principles  and  affections  and  to  consider  them 
merely  as  productions  of  genius.  In  this  mode 
of  estimation  it  is  forgotten  that  there  can  be 
no  essential  beauty  opposite  to  moral  beauty, 
and  that  a  work  which  offends  our  best  feel- 
ings can  have  no  power  over  the  sympathies 
of  a  well-ordered  mind. 

The  same  absence  of  religious  principle  and 
belief  which  characterizes  so  much  of  the  pop- 
ular literature  of  the  day,  appears  also  in  the 
speculations  of  men  of  a  high  order  of  intellect. 
It  is  but  a  few  years  since,  that  the  author  of 
the  "  Academical  Questions  "f  was  praised  as  a 
profound  thinker,  in  the  most  able  and  popu- 
lar of  modem  journals,  with  scarcely  a  remark 
upon  the  fact  that  his  speculations  conducted 
directly  to  the  dreary  gulf  of  utter  skepticism. 
That  work  had  its  day,  and  is  forgotten.  I 
have  just  been  turning  over  the  leaves  of  an- 
other, "  On  the  Origin  and  Prospects  of  Man," 
by  one  of  the  most  -powerful  writers  of  our 

*  "  The  whole  system  of  the  Cynics  is  to  be  rejected,  as  at  war 
with  modesty,  without  which  there  can  be  nothing  right,  nothing 
honorable."  CICERO.  [De  Officiia,  Lib.  L  c.  41.] 

t  fSir  William  Drummond.] 


14  PREFACE. 

times,  the  author  of  "  Anastasius."  *  To  me  it 
appears  only  a  system  of  virtual  atheism.  It 
excludes  all  idea  of  God,  according  to  the  con- 
ceptions formed  of  him  by  a  Christian.  The 
Father  of  the  Universe  equally  disappears  from 
the  later  systems  of  the  most  celebrated  Ger- 
man metaphysicians.  That  which  affects  to  be 
regarded  as  the  higher  philosophy  of  the  age,  is 
as  intelligible  upon  this  point,  though  upon  few 
others,  as  the  system  of  Spinoza.  Though  all- 
seeing  in  its  mists,  it  does  not  discern  the  God 
who  MADE  the  world  and  all  things  therein,  and 
whose  mercy  is  over  all  his  works.  In  a  large 
proportion  of  writings  which  touch  upon  the 
higher  topics  of  philosophy,  we  perceive  more 
or  less  disbelief  or  disregard  of  what  a  Chris- 
tian must  consider  as  the  great  truths  of  re- 
ligion. No  one  can  read  without  interest  the 
work  which,  just  as  he  was  terminating  his 
brilliant  career,  Sir  Humphry  Davy  left  as  a 
legacy,  containing  the  last  thoughts  of  a  phi- 
losopher. Yet  in  this  work,  written  as  life 
was  fast  receding,  instead  of  the  Christian  doc- 
trine of  the  immortality  of  the  conscious  indi- 
vidual, we  find  that  his  imagination  rested  on 
a  dream,  borrowed  from  Pagan  philosophy,  of 
the  pre-existence  and  future  glories  of  the  think- 

•  [Thomas  Hope.] 


PREFACE. 

ing  principle,  assuming  new  modes  of  being 
without  memory  of  the  past.  It  is  not  simply 
to  the  appearance  of  such  speculations  that  we 
are  to  look  as  characteristic  of  the  age,  but  to 
the  fact  that  their  appearance  excites  so  little 
attention,  that  they  blend  so  readily  with  the 
prevailing  tone  of  its  literature.  I  should  not 
be  surprised  if  some  intelligent  readers  of  the 
work  last  mentioned  should  even  have  forgot- 
ten the  passage  referred  to. 

Such  being  the  state  of  things,  we  are  led  to 
inquire,  Who  are  the  expositors  and  defenders 
of  religion,  and  what  influence  do  they  exert 
upon  public  sentiment  1  In  England  the  sci- 
ence of  theology,  so  far  as  it  is  connected  with 
revealed  religion,  has  fallen  into  general  neg- 
lect. Of  those  who  treat  its  subjects,  few 
deserve  a  hearing,  and  the  few  who  deserve 
cannot  obtain  it.  A  few  professedly  learned 
works  have  of  late  appeared ;  but  for  the  most 
part  they  are  mere  compilations,  made  without 
judgment  or  accuracy,  and  conformed  to  the 
creed  of  the  Church.  There  have  been  some 
bulky  republications  of  old  divines  little  suited 
to  the  wants  of  the  age.  Most  other  religious 
works  that  appear  are  evidently  intended  only 
for  "  the  religious  public  "  ;  a  phrase  that  has 
become  familiar,  and  marks  in  some  degree 


16  PREFACE. 

the  character  of  the  times.  Should  they  pass 
beyond  this  narrow  circle,  they  would,  I  fear, 
contribute  nothing  to  render  Christianity  more 
respected.  A  very  different  class  of  writers 
is  required  to  assert  for  religion  its  true  char- 
acter and  authority.  In  Germany  there  is  a 
large  body  of  theologians,  of  whom  the  most 
eminent  have  been  able  and  learned  critics. 
They  have  thrown  much  light  upon  the  his- 
tory, language,  and  contents  of  the  books  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament.  They  have  released 
themselves  from  the  thraldom  of  traditionary 
errors. .  But  they  have,  in  many  cases,  substi- 
tuted for  these  errors  the  most  extravagant 
speculations  of  their  own.  Nor,  with  some 
exceptions,  does  the  power  of  Christianity 
.show  itself  in  their  writings.  On  the  contrary, 
many  of  them,  being  infected  with  the  spirit 
of  infidelity  that  prevails  over  the  continent 
of  Europe,  have  regarded  Christianity,  not  as  a 
divine  revelation,  but  merely  as  presenting  a 
system  of  doctrines  and  precepts,  for  the  most 
part  probable  and  useful,  when  relieved  from 
the  mass  of  errors  that  have  been  added  to 
what  was  originally  taught  by  its  founder. 
Christianity  thus  becomes  only  a  popular 
name  for  a  certain  set  of  opinions.  Its  au- 
thority and  value  are  gone.  The  whole  proof 


PREFACE.  17 

of  the  doctrines  of  religion,  as  taught  by 
Christ,  consists  solely  in  the  fact  that  he  was 
a  teacher  from  God.  He  did  not  reason; 
he  affirmed.  He  adduced  no  arguments  but 
his  miracles.  Considered  as  a  self-taught 
philosopher,  he  did  nothing  to  advance  hu- 
man knowledge,  for  he  brought  no  new  evi- 
dence for  any  opinion.  But  considered  as  a 
teacher  from  God,  he  has  provided  the  au- 
thority of  God  for  the  foundation  of  our  faith. 
In  our  country,  if  I  am  not  deceived  by 
feelings  of  private  friendship,  true  Christianity 
has  found  some  of  its  best  defenders.  But 
the  forms  in  which  it  is  presented  throughout 
a  great  part  of  our  land,  and  the  feelings  and 
character  of  many  who  have  pretended  to  be 
its  exclusive  disciples,  are  little  adapted  to  pro- 
cure it  the  respect  of  intelligent  men.  They 
are  producing  infidelity,  and  preparing  the 
way  for  its  extensive  spread.  They  are  giving 
to  many  a  distaste  for  the  very  name  of  re 
ligion,  and  leading  them  to  regard  all  appear 
ance  of  a  religious  character  with  distrust  or 
aversion.  In  no  other  country  is  the  grossest 
and  most  illiberal  bigotry  so  broadly  exhibited 
as  among  ourselves.  Nowhere  else,  at  the 
present  day,  have  so  many  partisans  of  a  low 
order  of  intellect  risen  into  notice,  through  a 


18  PREFACE. 

spurious  zeal,  not  for  doctrines,  for  these  are 
changed  as  convenience  may  require,  but  for 
the  triumph  of  a  sect;  and  no  other  region 
has  of  late  been  ravaged  by  such  a  moral 
pestilence  as,  under  the  name  of  religion,  has 
prevailed  in  some  parts  of  our  land,  —  an  in- 
sane fanaticism,  degrading  equally  the  feelings 
and  intellect  of  those  affected  by  it.* 

In  past  times,  the  false  systems  of  religion 
that  have  assumed  the  name  of  Christianity, 
and  ruled  in  its  stead,  have  had  a  certain  adap- 
tation to  the  ignorance,  the  barbarism,  the  low 
state  of  morals,  and  the  perverted  condition  of 
society,  existing  contemporaneously  with  them. 
They  were  some  restraint  upon  vice.  They 
led  man  to  think  of  himself  as  something  more 
than  a  mere  perishing  animal.  Mixed  up  with 
poison  as  they  were,  they  served  as  an  antidote 
to  other  poisons  more  pernicious.  Though 
Christianity  was  obscured  by  thick  clouds,  yet 
a  portion  of  its  light  and  heat  reached  the 
earth.  But  the  time  for  those  systems  has 

*  If  any  one  should  think  these  expressions  too  strong,  let  him 
make  himself  acquainted  with  the  transactions  which  not  long  since 
were  taking  place  in  the  western  part  of  the  State  of  New  York.  Au- 
thentic documents  respecting  them  exist ;  but  such  scenes  have  not 
been  confined  to  that  part  of  our  country.  [Some  information  on 
this  subject  may  be  found  in  the  Christian  Examiner  for  May  and 
June,  1827,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  242-265;  arid  for  March,  1829,  Vol.  VI 
pp.  101-130.] 


PREFACE.  19 

\vhollj  passed.  A  wilder  scheme  could  not  be 
formed  than  that  of  re-establishing  the  Cath- 
olic religion  in  France,  or  calling  a  new  Coun- 
cil of  Dort  to  sanction  Calvinism  in  Holland, 
or  giving  to  Lutheranism  its  former  power 
over  men's  minds  in  Germany.  Their  vitality 
is  gone,  except  that  it  now  and  then  manifests 
itself  in  a  convulsive  struggle.  Yet  zealots 
are  still  claiming  for  the'm  the  authority  which 
belongs  of  right  to  true  religion ;  and  to  the 
inquiry  what  Christianity  is,  the  public,  offi- 
cial answer,  as  it  may  be  called,  is  still  re- 
turned, that  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  tradition- 
ary creed  of  some  established  church,  or  of 
some  prevalent  sect;  that  it  is  to  be  identi- 
fied with  the  grim  decrepitude  of  some  obso- 
lete form  of  faith.  We  are  referred  back  to 
some  one  of  those  systems  that  have  dishon- 
ored its  name,  counteracted  its  influence,  per- 
verted its  sanctions,  inculcated  false  and  inad- 
equate conceptions  of  the  religious  character, 
and  formed  broods  of  hypocrites,  fanatics,  and 
persecutors  ;  that  have  been  made  to  minister 
to  the  lust  of  power,  malignant  passions,  and 
criminal  self-indulgence ;  and  that  have  striven, 
if  I  may  so  speak,  to  retard  the  intellectual 
and  moral  improvement  of  men,  seeing  in  it 
the  approach  of  their  own  destruction. 


20  PREFACE. 

What,  then,  is  to  be  done  to  give  new  power 
to  the  great  principles  of  religion  I  What  is 
to  be  done  to  vindicate  its  true  influence  to 
Christianity  ]  We  must  vindicate  its  true 
character.  It  must  be  presented  to  men  such 
as  it  is.  The  false  doctrines  connected  with 
it,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  truths  which  it 
teaches,  must  be  swept  away.  It  is  not  enough 
that  they  should  be  secretly  disbelieved ;  they 
must  be  openly  disavowed.  It  .must  be  pub- 
licly acknowledged  that  they  are  utterly  for- 
eign from  Christianity.  It  is  not  enough  that 
those  who  defend  them  should  be  disregarded 
or  confuted.  They  must  be  so  confuted  as  to 
be  silenced.  Those  who  would  procure  for 
Christianity  its  due  supremacy  in  the  hearts 
of  men  should  feel  that  their  first  object  is 
so  to  operate  upon  the  convictions  and  senti 
ments  of  men,  that  the  public  sanction  which 
has  been  given  to  gross  misrepresentations  of 
it  shall  be  as  publicly  withdrawn.  In  pro- 
moting the  influence  of  Christianity,  the  main 
duty  of  an  enlightened  Christian  at  the  pres- 
ent day  is  to  labor  that  it  may  be  better  un- 
derstood. Till  this  be  effected,  all  other  ex- 
ertions, it  may  be  feared,  if  not  ineffectual, 
will  be  mischievous,  as  prolonging  the  author- 
ity of  error,  rather  than  establishing  the  truth. 


PEEFACE.  21 

But  what  interest  can  a  philosopher  or  a 
man  of  intellect  be  expected  to  take  in  the 
squabbles  of  controversial  divines  1  What  im- 
pression is  to  be  produced  upon  indifference, 
ignorance,  traditionary  faith,  bigotry,  and  self- 
interest,  by  one  who  has  nothing  to  conjure 
with  but  his  poor  reason  1  Why  be  solicit- 
ous to  cure  men  of  one  folly  on  the  subject 
of  religion,  since  it  is  sure  to  be  replaced  by 
another  ^  To  him  who  should  propose  such 
questions,  I  might  answer,  that  I  do  not  so 
despair  of  mankind.  I  compare  the  nine- 
teenth century  with  the  fifteenth,  and  I  per- 
ceive that  many  hard  victories  have  been  won, 
and  much  has  been  permanently  secured  in 
the  cause  of  human  improvement.  Truth  and 
Reason,  though  they  work  slowly,  work  sure- 
ly. An  abuse  or  an  error,  after  having  been 
a  thousand  times  confuted  or  exposed,  at  last 
totters  and  falls,  abandoned  by  its  defenders ; 
and  then 

"  One  spell  upon  the  minds  of  men 
Breaks,  never  to  unite  again." 

The  disputes  of  controversial  divines,  however 
mean  the  intellect,  or  vile  the  temper,  of  many 
who  have  engaged  in  them,  do  in  fact  concern 
the  most  important  truths  and  the  most  perni- 
cious errors.  Having  given  these  answers,  I 


22  PREFACE 

might  then  ask  in  return:  Why  should  a 
Christian,  with  a  deep-felt  conviction  of  the 
efficacy  of  his  religion  to  promote  the  best 
interests  of  mankind,  be  earnestly  desirous 
that  its  influence  may  not  be  superseded  and 
opposed  by  any  of  those  false  systems  of  doc- 
trine that  have  been  substituted  in  its  place  ? 
Why  should  one,  not  devoid  of  common  sym- 
pathy with  his  fellow-men,  care  whether  they 
believe  the  most  ennobling  truths,  or  some  per 
nicious  creed,  respecting  their  God  and  Father, 
their  nature  and  relations  as  immortal  beings, 
their  duty,  motives,  consolations,  and  hopes  ? 

We  know  the  efforts  that  are  making  by 
enlightened  men  in  Europe,  particularly  in 
England,  to  spread  intellectual  cultivation 
among  the  uneducated  classes  of  the  Old 
World.  So  far  as  the  knowledge  thus  com- 
municated is  what  may  be  called  secular,  it 
is  beneficial  in  enlarging  and  exercising  the 
mind,  affording  innocent  entertainment,  and, 
in  some  cases,  furnishing  the  means  of  ad- 
vancement in  life.  But  to  the  poor,  as  to 
every  other  class,  it  is  not  the  knowledge  of 
most  value.  Without  the  equal  diffusion  of 
religious  truth,  it  may  become  an  instrument 
of  evil  rather  than  of  good.  Mere  intellectual 
cultivation  is  as  likely  to  be  a  source  of  dis- 


PREFACE.  23 

content  and  disquietude  as  of  happiness.  An 
access  of  knowledge  may  tend  little  to  recon- 
cile a  man  to  his  situation.  The  new  power 
it  affords  will  be  used  according  to  the  dis- 
position of  him  who  possesses  it.  But  you 
can  impress  no  truth,  you  can  remove  no 
error,  respecting  the  duties  and  hopes  of  man 
as  an  immortal  creature  of  God,  you  can  im- 
press no  truth,  you  can  remove  no  error,  con- 
cerning religion,  without  surely  advancing 
men  in  morals  and  happiness.  This  is  the 
instruction  most  needed  for  all  classes,  but 
especially  for  the  least  informed.  Among  the 
highly  educated,  and  those  accustomed  to  the 
refinements  of  life,  there  are  certain  partial 
substitutes  for  religious  principle ;  —  the  feel- 
ing of  honor,  the  desire  of  reputation,  delicacy 
of  taste,  the  force  of  public  opinion,  and  a 
more  enlarged  perception  of  the  sentiments 
of  their  fellow-men,  which,  when  they  act  on 
the  conduct  of  others,  are  generally  on  the 
side  of  virtue.  The  levities  or  the  business 
of  life,  a  ceaseless  round  of  trifling  or  serious 
occupation,  which  hurries  them  on  with  little 
leisure  to  think  or  feel  deeply,  may  have  pre- 
vented them  from  becoming  acquainted  with 
the  essential  wants  of  our  nature.  But  in 
preaching  to  the  poor,  not  the  heartless,  re- 

7 


2  PREFACE. 

volt  ing,  debasing  absurdities  of  some  estab 
iished  creed,  but  the  doctrines  of  Jesus  Christ, 
we  may  give  them  consolations  and  hopes  to 
be  most  intimately  felt,  new  views  of  theiT 
nature,  new  motives  and  principles.  It  is  on 
the  diffusion  of  this  sort  of  instruction  among 
all  classes,  that  the  prospects  of  society  now 
depend.  Changes  are  coming  fast  upon  the 
world.  In  the  violent  struggle  of  opposite 
interests,  the  decaying  prejudices  that  have 
bound  men  together  in  the  old  forms  of  so- 
ciety are  snapping  asunder  one  after  another. 
Must  we  look  forward  to  a  hopeless  succes- 
sion of  evils,  in  which  exasperated  parties 
will  be  alternately  victors  and  victims,  till  all 
sink  under  some  one  power  whose  interest  it 
is  to  preserve  a  quiet  despotism?  Who  can 
hope  for  a  better  result,  unless  the  great  les- 
son be  learned,  that  there  can  be  no  essential 
improvement  in  the  condition  of  society  with- 
out the  improvement  of  men  as  moral  and 
religious  beings ;  and  that  this  can  be  effected 
only  by  religious  TRUTH  ?  To  expect  this 
improvement  from  any  form  of  false  religion, 
because  it  is  called  religion,  is  as  if,  in  admin- 
istering to  one  in  a  fever,  we  were  to  take 
some  drug  from  an  apothecary's  shelves  satis- 
fied with  its  being  called  medicine. 


PREFACE.  25 

ITiat  a  people  may  be  happy  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  civil  liberty,  a  certain  degree  of  knowl- 
edge and  culture  must  be  spread  through  the 
community.  A  general  system  of  education 
must  be  established.  Self-restraint  must  sup- 
ply the  place  of  external  coercion.  The  legiti- 
mate purpose  of  government  is  to  guard  the 
rights  of  individuals  and  the  community  from 
injury;  and  the  best  form  of  government  is 
that  which  effects  this  purpose  with  the  least 
power,  and  is  least  likely  therefore  to  afford 
the  means  of  misrule  and  oppression.  But 
the  power  not  conceded  to  the  government 
must  be  supplied  by  the  force  of  moral  prin- 
ciple and  sentiment  in  the  governed.  What 
education,  then,  is  required ;  what  knowledge 
is  to  be  communicated ;  what  culture  is  ne- 
cessary 1  I  answer,  not  alone,  nor  principally, 
that  education  which  the  schoolmaster  may 
give ;  but  moral  culture,  the  knowledge  of 
our  true  interests  and  relations.  There  may 
be  much  intellectual  culture  which  will  not 
tend  even  indirectly  to  form  men  to  the  ready 
practice  of  their  duties,  or  to  bind  them  to- 
gether in  mutual  sympathy  and  forbearance, 
unless  it  be  united  with  just  conceptions  of 
our  nature  and  the  objects  of  action.  Let  us 
form  in  fancy  a  nation  of  mathematicians  like 


26  PREFACE. 

La  Place  or  La  Lande,  ostentatious  of  their 
atheism  ;  naturalists  as  irreligious  and  impure 
as  Buffon ;  artists  as  accomplished  as  David, 
the  friend  of  Robespierre ;  philosophers,  like 
Hobbes  and  Mandeville,  Helvetius  and  Dide- 
rot ;  men  of  genius,  like  Byron,  Goethe,  and 
Voltaire ;  orators  as  powerful  and  profligate 
as  Mirabeau ;  and  having  placed  over  them  a 
monarch  as  able  and  unprincipled  as  the  sec- 
ond Frederic  of  Prussia,  let  us  consider  what 
would  be  the  condition  of  this  highly  intel- 
lectual community,  and  how  many  generations 
might  pass  before  it  were  laid  waste  by  gross 
sensuality  and  ferocious  passions.  So  far 
only  as  men  are  impressed  with  a  sense  of 
their  relations  to  each  other,  to  God,  and  to 
eternity,  are  they  capable  of  liberty  and  the 
blessings  of  social  order.  The  great  truths 
that  most  concern  us  are  those  on  which  our 
characters  must  be  formed.  But  religion  is 
the  science  that  treats  of  the  relations  of  man 
as  a  responsible,  immortal  being,  the  creature 
of  God.  By  teaching  the  truth  concerning 
them,  religion,  properly  so  called,  discloses  to 
us  the  ends  of  our  being,  preparing  men,  by 
virtue  and  happiness  here,  for  eternal  prog- 
ress in  virtue  and  happiness  hereafter.  So 
far  as  what  bears  the  name  of  religion  teaches 


PREFACE.  27 

falsehoods  concerning  them,  it  becomes  the 
ally  of  evil,  counteracting  the  improvement 
of  our  race.  False  religion  has  been  the  com- 
mon sign,  and  often  the  most  efficient  cause, 
of  the  corruption  and  misery  of  nations.  All 
great  changes  in  the  constitution  of  society  for 
the  purpose  of  delivering  men  from  tradition- 
ary abuses,  must  be  accompanied  with  a  cor- 
respondent advance  in  religious  knowledge,  or 
they  will  be  made  in  vain.  Where  the  prin 
ciples  of  Christianity  are  operative,  there  only 
can  men  be  released  from  the  strong  control 
of  some  superior  power;  which,  however 
profligately  exercised,  may  find  its  own  inter- 
est in  preserving  quiet  among  its  subjects. 
True  Christianity  urges  the  performance  of 
the  duties  of  man  to  man,  by  the  noblest  and 
most  effectual  motives;  and  in  a  community 
where  its  influence  were  generally  felt,  how 
little  would  there  be  to  apprehend  from  pub- 
lic oppression  or  private  wrong  ]  Where  the 
spirit  of  the  Lord  is^  there  is  liberty.  I  apply 
the  words  of  the  Apostle  in  a  different  sense 
from  that  in  which  he  used  them ;  but  in  one, 
the  truth  of  which  he  would  have  recognized. 
In  regarding  the  condition  and  changes  of 
societies  and  nations,  we  are  apt  to  look 
rather  tc  the  immediate  occasions  of  events, 


28  PREFACE. 

than  to  their  radical  and  efficient  causes.  A 
mere  worldly  politician,  for  instance,  might 
think  it  scarcely  worth  consideration,  that  the 
established  church  should  impose  a  creed 
which  a-  majority  of  its  clergy  do  not  believe ; 
or  that  oaths,  not  meant  to  be  regarded,  but 
enforced  as  a  traditionary  ceremony,  and  sub- 
scriptions, to  which  the  conscience  can  hardly 
be  cheated  into  assenting,  should  stand  in  the 
path  of  advancement  in  church  and  state.  To 
a  philosopher  it  may  appear  of  far  greater 
moment.  Other  topics,  more  exciting  to  the 
generality,  he  might  deem  of  secondary  impor- 
tance. This  he  might  view  as  a  deep-seated 
evil,  working  at  the  core,  the  natural  progress 
of  which  would  leave  but  a  false  and  hollow 
show  of  religion  and  morals.  Who  is  there 
that  will  deny  the  influence  of  true  religion  to 
promote  the  happiness  of  individuals  and  the 
good  order  of  society  1  Who  is  there  that 
will  deny  the  mischiefs  of  superstition,  false 
notions  of  God  and  our  duty,  bigotry,  and 
what  is  produced  as  their  counterpart,  irre- 
ligion  and  atheism  ?  Why  is  it,  then,  that 
many  are  so  little  solicitous  to  discriminate, 
on  this  most  important  subject,  truth  from 
falsehood,  that  they  fancy  they  are  giving 
their  countenance  to  the  former,  while  sup- 


PREFACE  29 

porting  the  latter ;  and  that,  if  they  aid  the 
cause  of  what  is  called  religion,  they  do  not 
stop  to  inquire  whether  it  be  the  religion  that 
exalts,  or  the  religion  that  degrades] 

In  the  present  state  of  information  and  pub- 
lic sentiment,  it  will  be  vain  to  attempt  to  give 
authority  to  false  religion.  The  zeal  of  parti- 
sans, or  the  power  of  the  state,  will  be  equally 
ineffectual.  The  only  important  consequence 
of  such  attempts  will  be  to  disgust  men  with  all 
religion.  The  experiment  has,  in  one  instance, 
been  carried  through.  In  France  the  forcing 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  upon  the  nation 
ended  in  the  overthrow  of  all  belief  in  Chris- 
tianity. The  consequences  that  ensued  had 
the  effect,  elsewhere,  of  frightening  infidels 
into  hypocrites  and  bigots ;  and  a  sudden 
show  of  religion  followed  the  French  Revolu- 
tion. But  from  this,  had  it  continued,  as  little 
was  to  be  hoped,  as  from  a  procession  with  rel- 
ics and  images  going  forth  to  stop  a  •  stream 
of  lava  in  its  course.  It  is  only  to  true  relig- 
ion that  we  must  look  for  aid  in  the  cause  of 
human  happiness.  This  alone,  being  in  accord- 
ance with  reason  and  with  our  natural  senti- 
ments, will  find  its  way  to  the  hearts  of  men. 

THE  tract  which  follows  in  relation  to  some 


30  PREFACE. 

of  those  false  doctrines  that  have  prevailed, 
though  it  will  give  no  new  conviction  to  the 
great  body  of  enlightened  men,  may  perhaps 
awaken  the  attention  of  some  to  the  grossness 
of  those  corruptions  that  have  been  connected 
with  Christianity,  and  to  the  necessity  of  pre- 
senting it  in  a  purer  form,  if  its  influence  is  to 
be  preserved.  It  may  tend  a  little  to  swell  the 
flood  of  public  sentiment  by  which  they  must 
be  swept  away.  It  may  perhaps  serve  to  con- 
vince some  who  have  looked  with  offence  upon 
the  absurdities  taught  as  Christian  doctrines, 
and  mistaken  them  for  such,  that  one  may  be 
a  very  earnest  believer,  whose  respect  for  such 
doctrines  is  as  little  as  their  own.  But,  espe- 
cially, it  may  serve  to  spread  a  knowledge  of 
the  truth  among  those  who,  from  their  habits  of 
life,  have  wanted  leisure  to  think  and  examine 
for  themselves  upon  subjects  of  this  nature; 
and  who  are  obliged,  as  all  of  us  are  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  to  take  many  opinions 
upon  authority,  till  they  see  reason  to  distrust 
the  authority  on  which  they  have  relied.-  In 
addressing  myself  to  such  readers,  I  may  take 
the  credit  (it  is  but  small)  of  having  avoided  a 
fault  common  in  theological  writings  intended 
for  popular  use.  I  have  not  presumed  upon 
their  ignorance  of  the  subject;  I  have  not 


PREFACE  31 

made  statements  which  in  a  more  learned 
discussion  I  should  be  ashamed  to  urge;  I 
have  given  no  explanations  that  I  knew  to  be 
unsatisfactory,  because  they  might  seem  plausi- 
ble ;  I  have  made  no  propositions  which  I  do 
not  fully  believe ;  I  have  urged  no  arguments 
but  what  have  brought  conviction  to  my  own 
mind  ;  I  have  written  as  one  who,  being  fully 
persuaded  himself,  and  regarding  his  subject 
as  free  from  all  doubt  and  .difficulty,  is  satis- 
fied that  nothing  more  is  to  be  done  than  to 
explain  to  others  in  intelligible  language  the 
views  which  are  present  to  his  own  mind. 

I  have  given  one  reason  why  it  is  little  to 
my  taste  to  discuss  this  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity. Whoever  treats  of  the  subject  is  liable 
to  be  confounded  with  a  class  of  writers  with 
whom  an  intelligent  Christian  would  not  will- 
ingly be  thought  to  have  anything  in  com- 
mon. By  many  who  look  with  indifference 
on  the  whole  discussion,  he  who  contends  for 
the  truth  will  be  placed  on  a  level  with  those 
who  defend  error.  Others  will  think  that  he 
is  agitating  questions  which  might  better  be 
left  at  rest ;  and  those  who  hold  the  tradition- 
ary belief  will  regard  him  as  a  disturber  of  the 
Christian  community.  It  may,  however,  be  a 
consolation  to  him  to  remember,  that  even  Soo 


PREFACE. 

rates  —  the  great  opposer  of  the  sophists  and 
false  teachers  of  his  day  —  was  called  XaXo? 
/cal  /3/ato?,  prating  and  turbulent,*  and  that  the 
very  same  epithets,  by  a  singular  coincidence, 
were  applied  to  Locke,*)*  the  most  enlightened 
theologian  of  his  age  and  nation.  The  feeling, 
however,  naturally  arising  from  the  causes  I 
have  mentioned,  might  prevent  one  from  en- 
gaging in  this  controversy,  were  it  not  for  the 
deep  sense  which  a  sincere  Christian  must  have 
of  the  value  of  true  Christianity,  and  of  the 
necessity  of  redeeming  it  from  the  imputa- 
tions to  which  it  has  been  exposed.  " '  Love,' 
says  one  of  our  old  poets,  '  esteems  no  office 
mean,'  and,  with  still  more  spirit, '  Entire  affec- 
tion scorneth  nicer  hands' "  J 

But  there  are  other  causes  which  make  this 
an  unpleasant  subject.  It  presents  human  na- 
ture under  the  most  humiliating  aspect.  The 
absurdities  that  have  been  maintained  are  so 
gross,  the  zeal  in  maintaining  them  has  been 
so  ferocious,  there  is  such  an  absence  of  any 
redeeming  quality  in  the  spectacle  presented, 
that  it  spreads  a  temporary  gloom  over  our 
tvhole  view  of  the  character  and  destiny  of 

*  V  Plutarch,  in  Catone.  [Cat.  Maj.  c.  23.] 
t  By  Wood,  in  his  "  Athenae  Oxonienses." 
t  These  quotations  from  Spenser  have  thus  been  brought  together 
by  Burke. 


PEEFACE. 

man.  We  seem  ourselves  to  sink  in  the  scale 
of  being,  and  it  demands  an  effort  to  recollect 
the  glorious  powers  with  which  God  has  en- 
dued our  race.  While  inquiring  concerning 
the  truths  of  religion,  we  appear  to  have  de- 
scended to  some  obscure  region  where  folly 
and  prejudice  are  the  sole  rulers.  We  may 
remember,  with  a  feeling  of  painful  oppression, 
the  mortifying  language  of  Hume,  in  one  of 
those  tracts  in  which  he  speculates  as  coldly 
upon  the  nature  and  hopes  of  mankind  as  if 
he  were  a  being  of  another  sphere,  bound  to 
us  by  no  common  sympathies.  "  All  popular 
theology,  especially  the  scholastic,  has  a  kind 
of  appetite  for  absurdity  and  contradiction.  If 
that  theology  went  not  beyond  reason  and 
common  sense,  her  doctrines  would  appear 
too  easy  and  familiar.  Amazement  must  of 
necessity  be  raised;  mystery  affected;  dark- 
ness and  obscurity  sought  after ;  and  a  foun- 
dation of  merit  afforded  to  the  devout  votaries, 
who  desire  an  opportunity  of  subduing  their 
rebellious  reason  by  the  belief  of  the  most  un- 
intelligible sophisms."  "  To  oppose  the  torrent 
of  scholastic  religion  by  such  feeble  maxims  as 
these,  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  same  thing  to 
be  and  not  to  be,  that  the  whole  is  greater  than  a 
part,  that  two  and  three  make  five,  is  pretend- 


34  PREFACE. 

ing  to  stop  the  ocean  with  a  bulrush."  *  And 
is  this  all  that  mankind  have  to  hope "?  Must 
this  dreary  prospect  for  ever  lie  before  us  I  Is 
this  all  that  religion  has  been,  and  all  that  it 
is  to  be  ?  We  trust  not.  Still,  in  the  confu- 
tation of  such  doctrines  as  have  been  taught, 
the  triumph,  if  it  may  be  so  called,  is  hum- 
bling. It  is  a  triumph  over  our  common 
nature  reduced  to  imbecility.  We  discover 
not  how  strong  human  reason  is,  but  how 
weak.  That  it  can  confute  them  implies  no 
power;  that  it  has  been  enslaved  in  their 
service  makes  us  feel,  almost  with  apprehen- 
sion, how  far  it  may  be  debased.  But  the 
hold  which  the  doctrines  of  false  religion  have 
had  upon  the  hearts  of  men  has  never  been 
proportioned  to  the  extent  in  which  they 
have  been  professed.  The  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity have  maintained  a  constant  struggle 
with  the  opposite  errors  that  have  been  con- 
nected with  them.  At  the  present  time  there 
are  many  who  acquiesce  in  these  errors,  and 
who  even  regard  them  with  traditionary  respect, 
in  whose  minds  they  lie  inert  and  harmless. 

But  the  very  circumstance  last  mentioned 
adds  to  the  unpleasant  character  of  the  dis- 
cussion that  follows.  Every  one  in  his  writ- 

•  [Natural  History  of  Religion,  Sect.  XI.] 


PREFACE.  «* 

ings  sometimes  turns  his  thoughts  to  those 
individuals  whose  approbation  would  give 
him  most  pleasure,  and  whose  good  opinion 
he  would  most  desire  to  confirm.  Among 
those  to  whom  my  thoughts  recur,  there  arr 
friends  from  whom  I  can  hope  for  no  sympa 
thy  in  my  present  task.  A  difference  of  opin 
ion  upon  this  or  any  other  subject  cannot 
lessen  my  respect  or  love  for  them;  and 
should  the  present  work  chance  to  fall  in 
their  way,  I  could  almost  wish  to  know,  that 
this  were  the  only  paragraph  that  had  fixed 
their  attention.  I  beg  them  to  believe  that  I 
am  no  zealot,  no  partisan  of  a  'sect,  no  dis- 
turber of  social  intercourse  by  a  spirit  of 
proselytism ;  and  that  where  I  see  the  fruits 
of  true  religion,  I  have  no  wish  to  conform 
the  faith  from  which  they  proceed  to  the 
standard  of  my  own.  The  same  opinions, 
true  or  false,  may  be  held  in  a  very  different 
temper,  with  very  different  associations,  and 
with  very  different  effects  upon  character. 
The  doctrines  most  pernicious  in  their  gen- 
eral results  may  be  innoxious  in  many  par- 
ticular cases.  The  same  system  of  faith  which 
established  its  autos  de  fe  in  Spain,  number- 
ing its  victims  by  tens  of  thousands,  and  sink- 
ing that  country  to  the  lowest  debasement, 


ob  PREFACE. 

may  have   been   consistent   in  Fenelon  with 
every  virtue  under  heaven. 

I  have  but  a  few  words  more  to  say  in  this 
connection.  The  tract  that  follows  relates 
only  to  one  class  of  those  false  doctrines  that 
have  been  represented  as  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity. There  are  others  equally  or  more 
important.  To  re-establish  true  Christianity 
must  be  a  work  of  long  and  patient  toil,  to  be 
effected  far  more  by  the  general  diffusion  of 
religious  knowledge,  than  by  direct  contro- 
versy. The  views  and  results  to  which  a  few 
intelligent  scholars  may  have  arrived,  must  be 
made  the  common  property  of  the  community. 
Essential  and  inveterate  errors  present  them- 
selves in  every  department  of  Christian  the- 
ology. False  religion  has  thrown  its  veil  over 
the  character,  and  perverted  the  meaning,  of 
the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament. 
Of  the  immense  mass  of  volumes  concerning 
revealed  religion,  there  is  but  a  scanty  num- 
ber in  which  some  erroneous  system  does  not 
form  the  basis  of  what  is  taught.  In  many 
of  the  most  important  branches  of  inquiry,  a 
common  Christian  can  find  no  trustworthy 
and  sufficient  guide.  Of  the  multitude  of 
topics  more  immediately  connected  with  Chris- 
tianity, there  is  scarcely  one  which  does  not 


PKEFACE.  37 

require  to  be  examined  anew  from  its  founda- 
tion, and  discussed  in  a  manner  very  different 
from  what  it  has  been.  Eeligion  must  be 
taken,  I  will  not  say  out  of  the  hands  of 
priests,  —  that  race  is  passing  away,  —  but 
out  of  the  hands  of  divines,  such  as  the  gen- 
erality of  divines  have  been ;  and  its  exposi- 
tion and  defence  must  become  the  study  of 
philosophers,  as  being  the  highest  philosophy. 
Some  degree  of  attention  to  the  fact  is  neces- 
sary, to  be  aware  of  the  general  and  gross  ig- 
norance that  exists  concerning  almost  every 
subject  connected  with  our  faith.  But  they 
who  would  communicate  the  instruction  which 
is  so  much  needed,  must  expect  to  be  con 
tinually  impeded  and  resisted  by  prejudice 
and  misapprehension.  Let  them,  however, 
understand  their  task  and  qualify  themselves 
for  it.  In  the  present  state  of  opinion  in  the 
world,  it  is  evident  that  he  is  assuming  a  re- 
sponsibility for  which  he  is  wholly  unfit,  who 
comes  forward  as  a  teacher  or  defender  of 
Christianity,  without  having  prepared  himself 
by  serious  thought  and  patient  study.  The 
traditionary  believer,  if  he  have  taken  this  re- 
sponsibility upon  himself,  should  stop  in  his 
course,  till  he  has  ascertained  whether  he  is 
doing  good  or  evil.  A  conflict  between  re- 


38  PREFACE. 

ligioii  and  irreligion  has  begun,  which  may 
not  soon  be  ended ;  and  in  this  conflict,  Chris- 
tianity must  look  for  aid,  not  to  zealots,  but 
to  scholars  and  philosophers.  Our  age  is  not 
one  in  which  there  can  be  an  esoteric  doctrine 
for  the  intelligent,  and  an  exoteric  for  the  un- 
informed. The  public  profession  of  systems 
of  faith  by  Christian  nations  and  churches, 
which  are  not  the  faith  of  the  more  enlight- 
ened classes  of  society,  has  produced  a  state 
of  things  that,  it  would  seem,  cannot  long 
continue.  We  may  hope  that  in  Protestant 
countries  its  result  will  not  be,  as  it  was  in 
France,  general  infidelity.  We  may  hope 
that  it  will  not  end  in  a  mere  struggle  be- 
tween fanaticism  and  irreligion,  as  seems  to 
be  the  tendency  of  things  in  some  parts  of 
our  own  country.  But  these  results  can  be 
prevented  only  by  awakening  men's  minds  to 
inquire,  What  Christianity  is  I  How  far  it 
has  been  misrepresented  1  What  are  its  evi- 
dences 1  What  is  its  value  1  And  what  is 
to  be  done  to  remove  those  errors  which  now 
deprive  it  of  its  power  1 

[Cambridge,  1833.] 


STATEMENT    OF    REASONS. 


SECTION  I. 

PURPOSE   OF   THIS  WORK. 

I  PROPOSE,  in  what  follows,  to  give  a  view  of  the 
doctrines  of  Trinitarians  respecting  the  nature  of 
God  and  the  person  of  Christ ;  to  state  the  reasons 
for  not  believing  those  doctrines;  and  to  show  in 
what  manner  the  passages  of  Scripture  urged  in 
their  support  ought  to  be  regarded. 


SECTION   II. 

THE  PROPER  MODERN  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY  CONTRA- 
DICTORY IN  TERMS  TO  THAT  OF  THE  UNITY  OF  GOD. — 
FORMS  IN  WHICH  THE  DOCTRINE  HAS  'BE EX  STATED, 

WITH   REMARKS. THE   DOCTRINE    THAT    CHRIST    IS    BOTH 

GOD  AND  MAN,  A  CONTRADICTION  IN  TERMS.  —  NO  PRE- 
TENCE THAT  EITHER  DOCTRINE  IS  EXPRESSLY  TAUGHT 
IN  THE  SCRIPTURES.  —  THE  MODE  OF  THEIR  SUPPOSED 
PROOF  WHOLLY  BY  WAY  OF  INFERENCE. 

THE  proper  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  it 
appears  in  the  creeds  of  latter  times,  is,  that  there 
are  three  persons  in  the  Divinity,  who  equally  pos- 
sess all  divine  attributes ;  and  the  doctrine  is  con- 
nected with  an  explicit  statement  that  there  is  but 
one  God.  Now,  this  doctrine  is  to  be  rejected, 
because,  taken  in  connection  with  that  of  the 
unity  of  God,  it  is  essentially  incredible ;  one 
which  no  man,  who  has  compared  the  two  doc- 
trines together  with  right  conceptions  of  both,  ever 
did  or  ever  could  believe.  Three  persons,  each 
equally  possessing  divine  attributes,  are  three 
Gods.  A  person  is  a  being.  No  one  who  has 
any  correct  notion  of  the  meaning  of  words  will 
deny  this.  And  the  being  who  possesses  divine 
attributes  must  be  God  or  a  God.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  then,  affirms  that  there  are  three 
Gods.  It  is  affirmed  at  the  same  time,  that  there 


MODERN    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  41 

is  but  one  God.  But  no  one  can  believe  that 
there  are  three  Gods,  and  that  there  is  but  one 
Goi. 

This  statement  is  as  plain  and  obvious  as  any 
which  can  be  made.  But  it  is  not  the  less  forcible 
because  it  is  perfectly  plain  and  obvious.  Some 
Trinitarians  have  indeed  remonstrated  against 
charging  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  with  the 
"ABSURDITIES  consequent  upon  the  language  of 
their  creed " ;  *  and  have  asserted  that  in  this 
creed  the  word  person  is  not  used  in  its  proper 
sense.  I  do  hot  answer  to  this,  that,  if  men  will 
talk  absurdity,  and  insist  that  they  are  teaching 
truths  of  infinite  importance,  it  is  unreasonable 
for  them  to  expect  to  be  understood  as  meaning 
something  wholly  different  from  what  their  words 
express.  The  true  answer  is,  that  these  com- 
plaints are  unfounded ;  and  that  the  proper  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  as  it  has  existed  in  latter 
times,  is  that  which  is  expressed  by  the  language 
used  taken  in  its  obvious  sense.  By  person,  says 
Waterland,  than  whom  no  writer  in  defence  of 
the  Trinity  has  a  higher  reputation,  "  I  certainly 
mean  a  real  Person,  an  Hijpostasis,  no  Mode,  At- 
tribute^ or  Property Each  divine  Person  is 

an  individual,  intelligent  Agent;  but  as  subsisting 
in  one  undivided  substance,  they  are  all  together, 
in  that  respect,  but  one  undivided  intelligent 

Agent The   church    never    professed    three 

Hypostases  in  any  other  sense,  but  as  they  mean 

*  The  words  quoted  are  from  Professor  Stuart's  Letters  to  tho 
Rev.  W.  E.  Charming,  p.  23,  2d  ed. 


42  ANCIENT    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

three  Persons"*  There  is,  indeed,  no  reasonable 
pretence  for  saying,  that  the  great  body  of  Trini- 
tarians, when  they  have  used  the  word  person^ 
have  not  meant  to  express  proper  personality.  He 
who  asserts  the  contrary,  asserts  a  mere  extrava- 
gance. He  closes  his  eyes  upon  an  obvious  fact, 
and  then  affirms  what  he  may  fancy  ought  to  have 
been,  instead  of  what  there  is  no  doubt  really  has 
been  maintained.  But  on  this  subject  there  is 
something  more  to  be  said ;  and  I  shall  remark 
particularly,  not  only  upon  this,  but  upon  the 
other  evasions  which  have  been  resorted  to,  in 
order  to  escape  the  force  of  the  statement  which 
has  just  been  urged 

I  WISH,  however,  first  to  observe,  that  the  ancient 
opinions  concerning  the  Trinity,  before  the  Council 
of  Nice  (A.  D.  325),  were  VERY  DIFFERENT  from  the 
modern  doctrine,  and  had  this  great  advantage  over 
it,  that,  when  viewed  simply  in  connection  with  the 
unity  of  God,  they  were  not  essentially  incredible. 
According  to  that  form  of  faith  which  approached 
nearest  to  the  modern  Orthodox  doctrine,  the  Fa- 
ther alone  was  the  Supreme  God,  and  the  Son  and 
Spirit  were  beings  deriving  their  existence  from 
him,  and  far  inferior,  to  whom  the  title  of  God 
could  be  properly  applied  only  in  an  inferior  sense. 
The  subject  has  been  so  thoroughly  examined,  that 
the  correctness  of  this  statement  will  not,  I  think, 
be  questioned,  at  the  present  day,  by  any  respect- 

•  Vindication  of  Christ's  Divinity,  pp.  350, 351, 3d  ed 


ANCIENT    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  43 

able  writer.  The  theological  student,  who  wishes 
to  see  in  a  small  compass  the  authorities  on  which 
it  is  founded,  may  consult  one  or  more  of  the  works 
mentioned  in  the  note  below.*  I  have  stated  that 
form  of  the  doctrine  which  approached  nearest  to 
modern  Orthodoxy.  But  the  subject  of  the  person- 
ality and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  may  be  ob- 
served, was  in  a  very  unsettled  state  before  the 
Council  of  Constantinople  (A.  D.  381).  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  in  his  Eulogy  of  Athanasius,  has  the 
following  passage,  respecting  that  great  father  of 
Trinitarian  Orthodoxy.  "  For  when  all  others  who 
held  our  doctrine  were  divided  into  three  classes, 
the  faith  of  many  being  unsound  respecting  the 
Son,  that  of  still  more  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit 
(on  which  subject  to  be  least  impious  was 
thought  to  be  piety),  and  a  small  number  being 
sound  in  both  respects ;  he  first  and  alone,  or  with 
a  very  few,  had  the  courage  to  profess  in  writing, 
clearly  and  explicitly,  the  true  doctrine  of  the  one 

*  Petavii  Dogmata  Thcologica,  Tom.  II.  Do  Trinitatc ;  particu- 
larly Lib.  I.  cc.  3,  4,  5.  —  Huctii  Origeniana  [appended  to  Tom. 
IV.  of  De  la  Rue's  edition  of  Origen],  Lib.  II.  Qusest.  2.  — 
Jackson's  edition  of  Novatian,  with  his  annotations.  —  Whitby,  Dis« 
quisitioncs  Modcstoe  in  Cl.  Bulli  Defensioncm  Fidei  Nicamae.  — 
Winston's  Primitive  Christianity,  Vol.  IV.  —  Clarke's  Scripture  Doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity.  —  Priestley's  History  of  Early  Opinions,  Vol  II. 
—  Miinscher's  Dogmcngcschichtc,  I.  §$  85-111.  —  [Martini,  Ver- 
such  ciner  prngmatischcn  Gcschichte  des  Dogma  von  dcr  Gotthcit 
Christi  in  den  vicrcrstcn  Jahrhundertcn.  —  Christian  Examiner,  Jan. 
1830,  Vol.  VII.  p.  303,  seqq.;  Sept.  1831,  Vol.  XI.  p.  22,  scqq.j 
July,  1832,  Vol.  XII.  p.  2S8,  seqq.;  and  July,  1836,  Vol.  XX.  p. 343, 
seqq.  The  articles  referred  to  were  written  by  the  Rev.  Alvan  Lain- 
«on,  D.D.] 


44  MODIFICATIONS    OF    THE 

Godhead  and  nature  of  the  three  persons.  Thus 
that  truth,  a  knowledge  of  which,  as  far  as  regards 
the  Son,  had  been  vouchsafed  to  most  of  the  Fa- 
thers before,  he  was  fully  inspired  to  maintain  in 
respect  to  the  Holy  Spirit."  * 

So  much  for  the  original  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
I  shall  now  proceed  to  state  the  different  forms 
which  the  modern  doctrine  has  been  made  to  as- 
sume, and  in  which  its  language  has  been  ex- 
plained, by  those  who  have  attempted  to  conceal 
or  remove  the  direct  opposition  between  this  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God. 

1.  MANY  Trinitarian  writers  have  maintained  a 
modification  of  the  doctrine,  in  some  respects  simi- 
lar to  what  has  just  been  stated  to  be  its  most  an- 
cient form.  They  have  considered  the  Father  as 
the  "  fountain  of  divinity,"  whose  existence  alone  is 
underived,  and  have  regarded  the  Son  and  Spirit 
as  deriving  their  existence  from  him  and  subordi- 
nate to  him;  but,  at  the  same  time,  as  equall) 
with  the  Father  possessing  all  divine  attributes. 
Every  well-informed  Trinitarian  has  at  least  heard 
of  the  Orthodoxy  and  learning  of  Bishop  Bull.  His 
Defence  of  the  Nicene  Creed  is  the  standard  work 
as  regards  the  argument  in  support  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  from  Ecclesiastical  History.  But 
one  whole  division  of  this  famous  book  is  em- 
ployed in  maintaining  the  subordination  of  the 
Son.  "  No  one  can  doubt,"  he  says,  "  that  the 

*  Orat.  XXT.   Opp.  1. 394. 


DOCTRINE      OP     THE    TRINITY.  45 

Fathers  who  lived  before  the  Nicene  Council 
acknowledged  this  subordination.  It  remains  to 
show  that  the  Fathers  who  wrote  after  this  Coun- 
cil taught  the  same  doctrine."  *  Having  given 
various  quotations  from  different  writers  to  this 
effect,  he  proceeds :  u  The  ancients,  as  they  re- 
garded the  Father  as  the  beginning,  cause,  author, 
fountain,  of  the  Son,  have  not  feared  to  call  Him 
the  one  and  only  God.  For  thus  the  Nicene  Fa- 
thers themselves  begin  their  creed :  We  believe  in 
one  God,  the  Father  omnipotent;  afterwards  sub- 
joining: and  in  one  [Lord]  Jesus  Christ, —  God  of 
God.  And  the  great  Athanasius  himself  concedes^ 
that  the  Father  is  justly  called  the  only  God,  be- 
cause he  alone  is  without  origin,  and  is  alone  the 
fountain  of  divinity."  f  Bishop  Bull  next  proceeds 
to  maintain  as  the  catholic  doctrine,  that  though 
the  Son  is  equal  to  the  Father  in  nature  and  every 
essential  perfection,  yet  the  Father  is  greater  than 
the  Son  even  as  regards  his  divinity ;  because  the 
Father  is  the  origin  of  the  Son;  the  Son  being 
from  the  Father,  and  not  the  Father  from  the 
Son.  Upon  this  foundation,  he  appears  to  think 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  unity  may  be  pre- 
served inviolate,  though  at  the  same  time  he  con- 
tends that  the  Son,  as  a  real  person,  distinct  from 
the  Father,  is  equally  God,  possessing  equally  all 
divine  perfections,  the  only  difference  being  that 
the  perfections  as  they  exist  in  the  Son  are  de« 
rived,  and  as  they  exist  in  the  Father  are  underived 

•  Defensio  Fidei  Nicaenro,  Sect.  IV.  c.  I.  f  3.  t  Ibid.,  *  «. 


46  MODIFICATIONS    OF    THE 

The  same  likewise,  according  to  him,  is  true  of  thfc 
Spirit,* 

But  in  regard  to  all  such  accounts  of  the  doc- 
trine, it  is  an  obvious  remark,  that  the  existence 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Spirit,  is  either  necessary, 
or  it  is  not.  If  their  existence  be  necessary,  we  have 
then  three  beings  necessarily  existing^  each  possess- 
ing divine  attributes;  and  consequently  we  have 
three  Gods.  If  it  be  not  necessary,  but  dependent 
on  the  will  of  the  Father,  then  we  say,  that  the 
distance  is  infinite  between  underived  and  inde- 
pendent existence,  and  derived  and  dependent ;  be- 
tween the  supremacy  of  God,  the  Father,  and  the 
subordination  of  beings  who  exist  only  through  his 
will.  In  the  latter  view  of  the  doctrine,  therefore, 
we  clearly  have  but  one  God ;  but  at  the  same 
time  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  dis- 
appears. The  form  of  statement  too,  just  men- 
tioned, must  be  abandoned ;  for  it  can  hardly  be 
pretended  that  these  derived  and  dependent  beings 
possess  an  equality  in  divine  attributes,  or  are 
equal  in  nature  to  the  Father.  Beings  whose 
existence  is  dependent  on  the  will  of  another 
cannot  be  equal  in  power  to  the  being  on  whom 
they  depend.  The  doctrine,  therefore,  however 
disguised  by  the  mode  of  statement  which  we  are 
considering,  must,  in  fact,  resolve  itself  into  an 
assertion  of  three  Gods  ;  or  must,  on  the  other 
hand,  amount  to  nothing  more  than  a  form  of 
Unitarianism.  In  the  latter  case,  however  objec- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 


47 


tionable  and  unfounded  I  may  think  it,  it  is  not  my 
present  purpose  to  argue  directly  against  it;  and 
in  the  former  case,  it  is  pressed  with  all  the  diffi- 
culties which  bear  upon  the  doctrine  as  commonly 
stated,  and  at  the  same  time  with  new  difficulties, 
which  affect  this  particular  form  of  statement. 
That  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  should  exist  neces- 
sarily, as  well  as  the  Father,  and  possess  equally 
with  the  Father  all  divine  attributes,  and  yet  be 
subordinate  and  inferior  to  the  Father,  —  or,  in 
other  words,  that  there  should  be  two  beings  or 
persons,  each  of  whom  is  properly  and  in  the  high- 
est sense  God,  and  yet  that  these  two  beings  or 
persons  should  be  subordinate  and  inferior  to  an- 
other being  or  person,  who  is  God,  —  is  as  incred- 
ible a  proposition  as  the  doctrine  can  involve. 

II.  OTHERS  again,  who  have  chosen  to  call 
themselves  Trinitarians,  profess  to  understand  by 
the  word  person  something  very  different  from 
what  it  commonly  expresses ;  and  regard  it  as 
denoting  neither  any  proper  personality,  nor  any 
real  distinction,  in  the  divine  nature.  They  use 
the  word  in  a  sense  equivalent  to  that  which  the 
Latin  word  persona  commonly  has  in  classic 
writers,  and  which  we  may  express  by  the  word 
character.  According  to  them,  the  Deity  con- 
sidered as  existing  in  three  different  persons  is  the 
Deity  considered  as  sustaining  three  different  char- 
acters. Thus  some  of  them  regard  the  three  persons 
as  denoting  the  three  relations  which  he  bears  to 
men,  as  their  Creator  (the  Father),  their  Redeemer 
9 


48  MODIFICATIONS    OF    THE 

(the  Son),  and  their  Sanctifier  (the  Holy  Spirit). 
Others  found  the  distinction  maintained  in  the 
doctrine  on  three  attributes  of  God,  as  his  good- 
ness, wisdom,  and  power.  Those  who  explain  the 
Trinity  in  this  manner  are  called  modal  or  nominal 
Trinitarians.  Their  doctrine,  as  every  one  must 
perceive,  is  nothing  more  than  simple  Unitarian- 
ism,  disguised,  if  it  may  be  said  to  be  disguised, 
by  a  very  improper  use  of  language.  Yet  this  doc- 
trine, or  rather  a  heterogeneous  mixture  of  opinions 
in  which  this  doctrine  is  conspicuous,  has  been,  at 
times,  considerably  prevalent,  and  has  almost  come 
in  competition  with  the  proper  doctrine. 

III.  THERE  are  others,  who  maintain,  with  those 
last  mentioned,  that,  in  the  terms  employed  in 
stating  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  word  per- 
son is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  usual  sense ;  but  who 
differ  from  them,  in  maintaining  that  those  terms 
ought  to  be  understood  as  affirming  a  real  three- 
fold distinction  in  the  Godhead.  But  this  is  noth- 
ing more  than  a  mere  evasion,  introduced  into  the 
general  statement  of  the  doctrine  for  the  purpose 
of  rescuing  it  from  the  charge  of  absurdity,  to 
which  those  who  thus  explain  it  allow  that  it 
would  be  liable,  if  the  language  in  which  it  is 
usually  expressed  were  to  be  understood  in  its 
common  acceptation.  They  themselves,  however, 
after  giving  this  general  statement,  immediately 
relapse  into  the  common  belief.  When  they  speak 
particularly  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  the  Spirit, 
they  speak  of  each  unequivocally  as  a  person  in 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  49 

the  proper  sense  of  the  word.  They  ascribe  to 
them  personal  attributes.  They  speak  of  each  as 
sustaining  personal  relations  peculiar  to  hirneelf, 
and  performing  personal  actions,  distinct  from 
those  of  either  of  the  others.  It  was  the  Son 
who  was  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world ;  and 
the  Father  by  whom  he  was  sanctified  and  sent. 
It  was  the  Son  who  became  incarnate,  and  not 
the  Father.  It  was  the  Son  who  made  atone- 
ment for  the  sins  of  men,  and  the  Father  by  whom 
the  atonement  was  received.  The  Son  was  in 
the  bosom  of  the  Father,  but  the  Father  was  not 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Son.  The  Son  was  the  Logos 
who  was  with  God,  but  it  would  sound  harsh  to 
say  that  the  Father  was  with  God.  The  Son 
was  the  first-born  of  every  creature,  the  image  of 
the  Invisible  God,  and  did  not  desire  to  retain  his 
equality  with  God.  There  is  no  one  who  would 
not  be  shocked  at  the  thought  of  applying  this 
language  to  the  Father.  Again,  it  was  the  Holy 
Spirit  who  was  sent  as  the  "Comforter"  to  our 
Lord's  Apostles,  after  his  ascension,  and  not  the 
Father  nor  the  Son.  All  this,  those  who  assert  the 
doctrine  of  three  distinctions,  but  not  of  three  per- 
sons, in  the  divine  nature,  must  and  do  say  and 
allow;  and  therefore  they  do  in  fact  maintain,  with 
other  Trinitarians,  that  there  are  three  divine  per- 
sons, in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  distinguished 
from  each  other.  They  have  adopted  their  mode 
of  stating  the  doctrine  merely  with  a  view  of  avoid- 
ing those  obvious  objections  which  overwhelm  it 
as  commonly  expressed ;  without  any  regard  to  its 


50  MODIFICATIONS    OF    THE 

consistency  with  their  real  opinions,  or  with  indis- 
putable and  acknowledged  truths.  The  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  an  intelligent 
being,  a  person.  There  may  seem  something  like 
irreverence  in  the  very  statement  of  this  truth  ;  but 
in  reasoning  respecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
we  are  obliged  to  state  even  such  truths  as  this. 
The  Son  of  God  is  an  intelligent  being,  a  person. 
And  no  Christian,  one  would  think,  who  reflects  a 
moment  upon  his  own  belief,  can  doubt  that  these 
two  persons  are  not  the  same.  Neither  of  them, 
therefore,  is  a  mere  distinction  of  the  divine  nature, 
nor  the  same  intelligent  being  regarded  under  dif- 
ferent distinctions.  Let  us  consider  for  a  moment 
what  sort  of  meaning  would  be  forced  upon  the 
language  of  Scripture,  if,  where  the  Father  and  the 
Son  of  God  are  mentioned,,  we  were  to  substitute 
the  terms,  "the  first  distinction  in  the  Trinity,"  and 
"the  second  distinction  in  the  Trinity";  or,  "God 
considered  in  the  first  distinction  of  his  nature," 
and  "  God  considered  in  the  second  distinction  of 
his  nature."  I  will  not  produce  examples,  because 
it  would  appear  to  me  like  turning  the  Scriptures 
into  burlesque. 

If  you  prove  that  the  person  who  is  called  the 
Son  of  God  possesses  divine  attributes,  you  prove 
that  there  is  another  divine  person  beside  the  Fa- 
ther. In  order  to  complete  the  Trinity,  you  must 
proceed  to  prove,  first,  THE  PERSONALITY  and  then 
the  divinity,  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is  the  only 
way  in  which  the  doctrine  can  be  established.  No 
one  can  pretend  that  there  is  any  passage  in  the 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  51 

Scriptures,  in  which  it  is  expressly  taught,  that 
there  is  a  threefold  distinction  of  any  sort  in  the 
divine  nature.  He  who  proves  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  from  the  Scriptures,  must  do  it  by  show- 
ing that  there  are  three  persons,  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  are  respectively 
mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  as  each  possessing 
divine  attributes.  There  is  no  other  medium  of 
proof.  There  is  no  other  way  in  which  the  doc- 
trine can  be  established.  Of  course,  it  is  the  very 
method  of  proof  to  which,  in  common  with  other 
Trinitarians,  those  resort,  who  maintain  that  form 
of  stating  the  doctrine  which  we  are  considering 
It  follows  from  this,  that  their  real  opinions  must 
oe  in  fact  the  same  with  those  of  other  Trinita- 
rians. Indeed,  the  whole  statement  appears  to  be 
little  more  than  a  mere  oversight,  a  mistake,  into 
'which  some  have  fallen  in  their  haste  to  escape 
from  the  objections  which  they  have  perceived 
might  be  urged  against  the  common  form  of  the 
doctrine. 

The  remarks  that  have  been  made  appear  to  me 
plain,  and  such  as  may  be  easily  understood  by 
every  reader.  I  have  doubted,  therefore,  whether 
to  add  another,  the  force  of  which  may  not  be  at 
once  perceived,  except  by  those  who  are  a  little 
familiar  with  metaphysical  studies.  But  as  it 
seems  to  show  decisively,  that  the  statement 
which  we  are  considering  is  untenable  by  any 
proper  Trinitarian,  I  have  thought,  on  the  whole, 
that  it  might  be  worth  while  to  subjoin  it. 

In  regard  to  the  personality  of  the  divine  nature, 


52  MODIFICATIONS    OF    THE 

the  only  question  is,  whether  there  are  three  per- 
sons, or  but  one  person.  Those  with  whom  we 
are  arguing  deny  that  there  are  three  persons. 
Consequently  they  must  maintain  that  there  is 
but  one  person.  They  affirm,  however,  that  theie 
is  a  threefold  distinction  in  the  divine  nature  ;  that 
is,  in  the  nature  of  this  one  person.  But  of  the 
nature  of  any  being,  we  can  know  nothing  but  by 
the  attributes  or  properties  of  that  being.  Ab- 
stract all  the  attributes  or  properties  of  any  being, 
and  nothing  remains  of  which  you  can  form  even 
an  imagination.  These  are  all  that  is  cognizable 
by  the  human  mind.  When  you  say,  therefore, 
that  there  is  a  threefold  distinction  in  the  nature 
of  any  being,  the  only  meaning  which  the  words 
will  admit  (in  relation  to  the  present  subject)  is, 
that  the  attributes  or  properties  of  this  being  may 
be  divided  into  three  distinct  classes,  which  may 
be  considered  separately  from  each  other.  All, 
therefore,  which  is  affirmed  by  the  statement  of 
those  whom  we  are  opposing  is,  that  the  attributes 
of  that  ONE  PERSON  who  is  God  may  be  divided 
into  three  distinct  classes ;  or,  in  other  words,  that 
God  may  be  viewed  in  three  different  aspects  in 
relation  to  his  attributes.  But  this  is  nothing  more 
than  a  modal  or  nominal  Trinity,  as  we  have  before 
explained  these  terms.  Those,  therefore,  whose 
opinions  we  are  now  considering,  are,  in  fact, 
nominal  Trinitarians  in  their  statement  of  the  doc- 
trine, and  real  Trinitarians  in  their  belief.  They 
hold  the  proper  doctrine,  with  an  implicit  acknowl- 
edgment in  the  very  statement  which  they  have 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  53 

adopted,  that  the  proper  doctrine  is  untenable; 
and  have  involved  themselves,  therefore,  in  new 
difficulties,  without  having  effected  an  escape  from 
those  with  which  they  were  pressed  before. 

IV.  BUT  a  very  considerable  porti3n  of  Trini- 
tarians, and  some  of  them  among  the  most  emi- 
nent, have  not  shrunk  from  understanding  the  doc- 
trine as  affirming  the  existence  of  three  equal  divine 
minds,  and  consequently,  to  all  common  apprehen- 
sion, of  three  Gods ;  and  from  decidedly  rejecting 
the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God,  in  that  sense 
which  is  at  once  the  popular  and  the  philosophical 
sense  of  the  term.  All  the  unity  for  which  they 
contend  is  only  such  as  may  result  from  those 
three  divinities  being  inseparably  conjoined,  and 
having  a  mutual  consciousness,  or  a  mutual  in- 
being  :  which  last  mode  of  existence  is  again  ex- 
pressed in  the  language  of  technical  theology  by 
the  terms  perichoresis  and  circumincession.  "  To 
say,"  says  Dr.  William  Sherlock,  "  they  are  three 
divine  persons,  and  not  three  distinct  infinite  minds, 
is  both  heresy  and  nonsense."  *  "  The  distinction 
of  persons  cannot  be  more  truly  and  aptly  repre- 
sented than  by  the  distinction  between  three  men  ; 
for  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  as  really  dis- 
tinct persons  as  Peter,  James,  and  John."  f  "  We 
must  allow  the  Divine  persons  to  be  real,  substan- 
tial beings,"  J  There  are  few  names  of  higher  au- 
thority among  Calvinists  than  that  of  Howe.  The 

*  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  p.  66.    London,  1690 
t  Ibid.,  p  105.  t  Ibid.,  p.  47 


54  MODIFICATIONS    OF    THE 

mode  of  explaining  the  doctrine  to  which  he  was 
inclined  is  well  known.  He  was  disposed  to  re- 
gard the  three  divine  persons  as  "three  distinct, 
individual,  necessarily  existent,  spiritual  beings,'* 
who  formed  together  "  the  most  delicious  society."  * 
Those  who  give  such  accounts  of  the  doctrine  may 
at  least  claim  the  merit  of  having  rendered  their 
opinions  in  some  degree  consistent  with  each  other. 
They  have  succeeded,  at  a  dear  purchase  to  be 
sure,  in  freeing  their  creed  from  intrinsic  absurdity, 
and  have  produced  a  doctrine  to  which  there  is  no 
decisive  objection,  except  that  it  contradicts  the 
most  explicit  declarations  of  the  Scriptures,  ana 
the  first  principles  of  natural  religion ;  and  is,  there- 
fore, irreconcilable  with  all  that  God  has  in  any 
way  taught  us  of  himself. 

After  the  Council  of  Nice,  that  which  we  have 
last  considered  became  gradually  the  prevailing 
form  of  the  doctrine,  except  that  it  was  not  very 
clearly  settled  in  what  the  divine  unity  consisted. 
The  comparison  of  the  three  persons  in  the  Trinity 
to  three  different  men  was  borrowed  by  Sherlock 
from  the  Fathers  of  the  fourth  century.  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  who  himself  maintained  zealously  this 
form  of  Orthodoxy,  says  that  "  those  who  were  too 
Orthodox  fell  into  polytheism,"  f  i.  e.  tritheism.  It 
might  have  been  difficult  to  determine  the  precise 
distance  from  tritheism  of  those  who  were  not  too 
Orthodox. 

*  Howe  s  Calm  Discourse  of  the  Trinity  in  the  Godhead.   Workai 
Vol.  II.  p.  537,  seqq.,  particularly  pp.  549,  550. 
t  Orat  I.    Opp.  I.  16. 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  55 

THIS,  then,  is  the  state  of  the  case.  The  propel 
modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is,  when  viewed  in 
connection  with  that  of  the  unity  of  God,  a  doc- 
trine essentially  incredible.  In  endeavoring  to  pre- 
sent it  in  a  form  in  which  it  may  be  defended,  one 
class  of  Trinitarians  insist  strongly  upon  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Father,  and  the  subordination  of 
the  Son  and  the  Spirit.  These,  on  the  one  hand, 
must  either  affirm  this  distinction  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  really  to  maintain  only  a  very  untenable 
form  of  Unitarianism ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  must 
in  fact  retain  the  common  doctrine,  encumbered 
with  the  new  and  peculiar  difficulty  which  results 
from  declaring  that  the  Son  and  Spirit  are  each 
properly  God,  but  that  each  is  a  subordinate  God. 
Another  class^  the  nominal  Trinitarians,  explain 
away  the  doctrine  entirely,  and  leave  us 'nothing 
in  their  general  account  of  it  with  which  to  con- 
tend, but  a  very  unjustifiable  use  of  language.  A 
third  class,  those  who  maintain  three  distinctions, 
and  deny  three  persons,  have  merely  put  a  forced 
meaning  upon  the  terms  used  in  its  statement ; 
and  have  then  gone  on  to  reason  and  to  write,  in 
a  manner  which  necessarily  supposes  that  those 
terms  are  used  correctly,  and  that  the  common 
form  of  the  doctrine,  which  they  profess  to  reject, 
i«  really  that  in  which  they  themselves  receive  it. 
And  a  fourth  class  have  fallen  into  plain  and  bald 
tritheism,  maintaining  the  unity  of  God  only  by 
maintaining  that  the  three  Gods  of  whom  they 
speak  are  inseparably  and  most  intimately  united, 
To  these  we  may  add,  as  a  fifth  class,  those  who 


56  MODIFICATIONS    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

receive,  or  profess  to  receive,  the  common  doctrine, 
without  any  attempt  to  modify,  explain,  or  under 
stand  it.  All  the  sects  of  Trinitarians  fall  into  one 
or  other  of  the  five  classes  just  mentioned.  Now 
we  may  put  the  nominal  Trinitarians  out  of  the 
question.  They  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  pres- 
ent controversy.  And  if  there  be  any,  who,  calling 
themselves  Trinitarians,  do  in  fact  hold  such  a  sub- 
ordination of  the  Son  and  Spirit  to  the  Father,  that 
their  doctrine  amounts  only  to  one  form  of  Uni- 
tarianism,  we  may  put  these  out  of  the  question 
likewise.  After  having  done  this,  it  will  appear 
from  the  preceding  remarks  that  the  whole  body 
of  real  Trinitarians  may  be  separated  into  two 
great  divisions  ;  namely,  those  who,  in  connection 
with  the  divine  unity,  hold  the  proper  doctrine, 
either  with  or  without  certain  modifications, — 
which  modifications,  though  intended  to  lessen, 
would  really,  if  possible,  add  to  its  incredibility; 
and  those  who,  maintaining  the  unity  only  in 
name,  are  in  fact  proper  believers  in  three  Gods. 
Now  we  cannot  adopt  the  doctrine  of  those  first 
mentioned,  because  we  cannot  believe  what  ap- 
pears to  us  a  contradiction  in  terms ;  nor  the  doc- 
trine of  those  last  mentioned,  because  neither  reve- 
lation nor  reason  teaches  us  that  there  are  three 
Gods.  If  there  be  any  one  who  does  not  acqui- 
esce in  the  conclusion  to  which  we  have  arrived, 
I  beg  him  to  read  over  again  what  precedes,  and 
to  satisfy  himself,  either  that  there  is,  or  that  there 
is  not,  some  error  in  the  statements  and  reason- 
ings. The  subject  is  not  one  with  which  we  are 


HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  57 

at  l;berty  to  trifle,  and  arbitrarily  assume  opinions 
without  reason.  It  behooves  every  one  to  attend 
well  to  the  subject;  and  to  be  sure  that  he  holds 
the  doctrine  with  no  ambiguous  or  unsteady  faith, 
before  he  undertakes  to  maintain,  or  professes  to 
believe  it,  or  in  any  way  gives  countenance  to  its 
reception  among  Christians. 


WITH  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is.  connected 
that  of  the  HYPOSTATIC  UNION,  as  it  is  called,  or 
the  doctrine  of  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human 
natures  in  Christy  in  such  a  manner  that  these  two 
natures  constitute  but  one  person.  But  this  doc- 
trine may  be  almost  said  to  have  pre-eminence  in 
incredibility  above  that  of  the  Trinity  itself.  The 
latter  can  be  no  object  of  belief  when  regarded  in 
connection  with  that  of  the  Divine  Unity  ;  for 
these  two  doctrines  directly  contradict  each  other, 
But  the  former,  without  reference  to  any  other 
doctrine,  does  in  itself  involve  propositions  as 
clearly  self-contradictory  as  any  which  it  is  in  the 
power  of  language  to  express.  It  teaches  that 
Christ  is  both  God  and  man.  The  proposition  is 
very  plain  and  intelligible.  The  words  God  and 
man  are  among  those  which  are  in  most  common 
use,  and  the  meaning  of  which  is  best  defined  and 
understood.  There  cannot  (as  with  regard  to  the 
terms  employed  in  stating  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity)  be  any  controversy  about  the  sense  in 
which  they  are  used  in  this  proposition,  or,  in  other 
words,  about  the  ideas  which  they  are  intended  to 
express.  And  we  perceive  that  these  ideas  are 


58  DOCTRINE    OF    THE 

wholly  incompatible  with  each  other.  Our  idea 
of  God  is  of  an  infinite  being  ;  our  idea  of  man  is 
of  a  finite  being ;  and  we  perceive  that  the  same 
being  cannot  be  both  infinite  and  finite.  There  is 
nothing  clear  in  language,  no  proposition  of  any 
sort  can  be  affirmed  to  be  true,  if  we  cannot  affirm 
this  to  be  true,  —  that  it  is  impossible  that  the 
same  being  should  be  finite  and  infinite ;  or,  in 
other  words,  that  it  is  impossible  that  the  same 
being  should  be  man  and  God.  If  the  doctrine 
were  not  familiar  to  us,  we  should  revolt  from  it, 
as  shocking  every  feeling  of  reverence  toward 
God,  and  it  would  appear  to  us,  at  the  same 
time,  as  mere  an  absurdity  as  can  be  presented  to 
the  understanding.  No  words  can  be  more  des- 
titute of  meaning,  so  far  as  they  are  intended  to 
convey  a  proposition  which  the  mind  is  capable  of 
admitting^  than  such  language  as  we  sometimes 
find  used,  in  which  Christ  is  declared  to  be  at  once 
the  Creator  of  the  universe,  and  a  man  of  sorrows ; 
God  omniscient  and  omnipotent,  and  a  feeble  man 
of  imperfect  knowledge.* 

I  know  of  no  way  in  which  the  force  of  the 
statement  just  urged  can  appear  to  be  evaded, 
except  by  a  sort  of  analogy  that  has  been  insti- 
tuted between  the  double  nature  of  Christ,  as  it 
is  called,  and  the  complex  constitution  of  man,  as 
consisting  of  soul  and  body.  It  has  been  said  01 
implied,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  union  of  the 
divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ  does  not 

*  [See  Professor  Stuart's  Letters,  p.  48.] 


HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  59 

involve  propositions  more  self-contradictory  than 
those  which  result  from  the  complex  constitution 
of  man;  —  that  we  may,  for  instance,  affirm  of 
man,  that  he  is  mortal,  and  that  he  is  immortal ; 
or  of  a  particular  individual,  that  he  is  dead,  and 
that  he  is  living  (meaning  by  the  latter  term,  that 
he  is  existing  in  the  world  of  spirits).  The  obvious 
answer  is,  that  there  is  NO  analogy  between  these 
propositions  and  those  on  which  we  have  re- 
marked. The  propositions  just  stated  belong  to 
a  very  numerous  class,  comprehending  all  those  in 
which  the  same  term  is  at  once  affirmed  and  de- 
nied of  the  same  subject,  the  term  being  used  in 
different  senses  ;  or  in  which  terms  apparently  op- 
posite are  affirmed  of  the  same  subject,  the  terms 
being  used  in  senses  not  really  opposed  to  each 
other.  When  I  say  that  man  is  mortal,  I  mean 
that  his  present  life  will  terminate ;  when  I  say 
that  he  is  immortal,  I  mean  that  his  existence 
will  not  terminate.  I  use  the  words  in  senses 
not  opposed,  and  bring  together  no  ideas  which 
are  incompatible  with  each  other.  The  second 
proposition  just  mentioned  is  of  the  same  char- 
acter with  the  first,  and  admits,  as  every  one 
will  perceive,  of  a  similar  explanation.  In  order 
to  constitute  an  analogy  between  propositions 
of  this  sort  and  those  before  stated,  Trinita- 
rians must  say,  that,  when  they  affirm  that 
Christ  is  finite  and  not  finite,  omniscient  and 
not  omniscient,  they  mean  to  use  the  words 
"finite"  and  "omniscient"  in  different  senses 
in  the  two  parts  of  each  proposition.  But  this 
10 


60  DOCTRINE    OF    THE 

they  will  not  say ;  nor  do  the  words  admit  oi 
more  than  one  sense. 

A  being  of  a  complex  constitution  like  man  is 
not  a  being  of  a  double  nature.  The  very  term 
double  nature,  when  one  professes  to  use  it  in  a 
strict,  philosophical  sense,  implies  an  absurdity. 
The  nature  of  a  being  is  ALL  which  constitutes 
it  what  it  is ;  and  when  one  speaks  of  a  double 
nature,  it  is  the  same  sort  of  language  as  if  he 
were  to  speak  of  a  double  individuality.  With  re- 
gard to  a  being  of  a  complex  constitution,  we  may, 
undoubtedly,  affirm  that  of  a  part  of  this  con- 
stitution which  is  not  true  of  the  whole  being ;  as 
we  may  affirm  of  the  body  of  man,  that  it  does 
not  think,  though  we  cannot  affirm  this  of  man;^ 
or,  on  the  other  hand,  we  may  affirm  of  the  being 
itself  what  is  not  true  of  a  part  of  its  constitution, 
as  by  reversing  the  example  just  given.  This  is 
the  whole  truth  relating  to  the  subject.  Of  a 
being  of  a  complex  constitution,  it  is  as  much  an 
absurdity  to  affirm  contradictory  propositions,  as 
of  any  other  being. 

According  to  those  who  maintain  the  doctrine 
of  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  Christ  speaks  of  him- 
self, and  is  spoken  of  by  his  Apostles,  sometimes 
as  a  man,  sometimes  as  God,  and  sometimes  as 
both  God  and  man.  He  speaks,  and  is  spoken  of, 
under  these  different  characters  indiscriminately, 
without  any  explanation,  and  without  its  being 
anywhere  declared  that  he  existed  in  these  differ- 
ent conditions  of  being.  He  prays  to  that  being 
whom  he  himself  was.  He  declares  himself  to  be 


HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  61 

ignorant  of  what  (being  God)  be  knew,  and  unable 
to  perform  what  (being  God)  he  could  perform. 
He  affirms  that  he  could  do  nothing  of  himself,  or 
by  his  own  power,  though  he  was  omnipotent. 
He,  being  God,  prays  for  the  glory  which  he  had 
with  God,  and  declares  that  another  is  greater 
than  himself.*  In  one  of  the  passages  QUOTED  IN 
PROOF  OF  HIS  DIVINITY,  he  is  called  the  image  of 
the  invisible  God ;  in  another  of  these  passages, 
he,  the  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever,  is  said  to 
have  been  anointed  by  God  with  the  oil  of  glad- 
ness above  his  fellows ;  and  in  a  third  of  them,  it 
is  affirmed  that  he  became  obedient  to  death,  even 
the  death  of  the  cross.f  If  rny  readers  are  shocked 
by  the  combinations  which  I  have  brought  to- 
gether, I  beg  them  to  do  me  the  justice  to  believe 
that  my  feelings  are  the  same  with  their  own. 
But  these  combinations  necessarily  result  from  the 
doctrine  which  we  are  considering.  Page  after 
page  might  be  filled  with  inconsistencies  as  gross 
and  as  glaring.  The  doctrine  has  turned  the  Scrip- 
tures, as  far  as  they  relate  to  this  subject,  into  a 
book  of  riddles,  and,  what  is  worse,  of  riddles  ad- 
mitting of  no  solution.  I  willingly  refrain  from 
the  use  of  that  stronger  language  which  will  occur 
to  many  of  my  readers. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  then,  and  that  of 
the  union  of  two  natures  in  Christ,  are  doctrines 
which,  when  fairly  understood,  it  is  impossible, 
from  the  nature  of  the  human  mind,  should  be  be- 

*  [See  John  xvii. ;  Mark  xiii.  32  ;  John  v.  30  ;  xiv.  28.] 

t  fColosciaus  i.  15,  seqq.;  Hebrews  i.  8,  9;  Philippians  ii.  5  -8.] 


62  NEITHER   DOCTRINE    TAUGHT 

lieved.  They  involve  manifest  contradictions,  and 
no  man  can  believe  what  he  perceives  to  be  a  con- 
tradiction. In  what  has  been  already  said,  I  have 
not  been  bringing  arguments  to  disprove  these 
doctrines  ;  I  have  merely  been  showing  that  they 
are  intrinsically  incapable  of  any  proof  whatever ; 
for  a  contradiction  cannot  be  proved; — that  they 
are  of  such  a  character,  that  it  is  impossible  to 
bring  arguments  in  their  support,  and  unnecessary 
to  adduce  arguments  against  them. 

HERE,  then,  we  might  rest.  If  this  proposition 
have  been  established,  the  controversy  is  at  an  end, 
as  far  as  it  regards  the  truth  of  the  doctrines,  and 
as  far  as  it  can  be  carried  on  against  us  by  any 
sect  of  Christians.  Till  it  can  be  shown  that  there 
is  some  ESSENTIAL  mistake  in  the  preceding  state- 
ments, he  who  chooses  to  urge  that  these  doctrines 
were  taught  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles  must  do 
this,  not  as  a  Christian,  but  as  an  unbeliever.  If 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  communicated  a  revela- 
tion from  God,  these  could  make  no  part  of  it,  for 
a  revelation  from  God  cannot  teach  absurdities. 

But  here  I  have  no  intention  of  resting.  If  I 
were  to  do  so,  I  suppose  that  the  old,  unfounded 
complaint  would  be  repeated  once  more,  that 
those  who  reject  these  doctrines  oppose  reason  to 
revelation  ;  for  there  are  men  who  seem  unable  to 
comprehend  the  possibility  that  the  doctrines  of 
their  sect  may  make  no  part  of  the  Christian  reve- 
lation. What  pretence,  then,  is  there  for  asserting 
that  the  doctrines  in  question  are  taught  in  the 


IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  63 

Scriptures  ?  Certainly  they  are  nowhere  expressly 
jaught.  It  cannot  even  be  pretended  that  they 
are.  There  is  not  a  passage  from  one  end  of  the 
Bible  to  the  other  on  which  one  can  by  any  vio- 
lence force  such  a  meaning  as  to  make  it  affirm 
the  proposition,  "that  there  are  three  persons  in 
the  Godhead,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  and  these  three  are  one  God,  the  same  in 
substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory " ;  or  the 
proposition  that  Christ  "  was  and  continues  to  be 
God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  per- 
son for  ever."*  There  was  a  famous  passage  in 
the  First  Epistle  of  John  (v.  7),  which  was  believed 
to  affirm  something  like  the  first-mentioned  propo- 
sition ;  but  this  every  man  of  tolerable  learning  and 
fairness,  at  the  present  day,  acknowledges  to  be 
spurious.  Arid  now  this  is  gone,  there  is  not  one 
to  be  discovered  of  a  similar  character.  THERE  is 

NOT  A  PASSAGE  TO  BE  FOUND  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES 
WHICH  CAN  BE  IMAGINED  TO  AFFIRM  EITHER  OP 
THOSE  DOCTRINES  THAT  HAVE  BEEN  REPRESENTED  A3 
BEING  AT. THE  VERY  FOUNDATION  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

What  pretence,  then,  is  there  for  saying  that 
those  doctrines  were  taught  by  Jesus  Christ  and 
are  to  be  received  upon  his  authority?  What 
ground  is  there  for  affirming  that  he,  being  a  man, 
announced  himself  as  the  infinite  God,  and  taught 
his  followers  also  that  God  exists  in  three  persons  ? 
But  I  will  state  a  broader  question.  What  pre- 
tence is  there  for  saying  that  those  doctrines  were 

*  [Westminster  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism,  Answers  6  and  21. 1 
10  ' 


64  REASONING    OF    TRINITARIANS. 

taught  by  any  writer,  Jewish  or  Christian,  of  any 
book  of  the  Old  or  New  Testament  ?  None  what- 
ever;—  if,  in  order  to  prove  that  a  writer  has 
taught  a  doctrine,  it  be  necessary  to  produce  some 
passage  in  which  he  has  affirmed  that  doctrine. 

What  mode  of  reasoning,  then,  is  adopted  by 
Trinitarians?  I  answer,  that,  in  the  first  place, 
they  bring  forward  certain  passages,  which,  they 
maintain,  prove  that  Christ  is  God.  With  these 
passages  they  likewise  bring  forward  some  others, 
which  are  supposed  to  intimate  or  prove  the  per- 
sonality and  deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  cannot 
but  be  observed,  however,  that,  for  the  most  part, 
they  give  themselves  comparatively  little  trouble 
about  the  latter  doctrine,  and  seem  to  regard  it  as 
following  almost  as  a  matter  of  course,  if  the  for- 
mer be  established.  Now  there  is  no  dispute  that 
the  Father  is  God ;  and  it  being  thus  proved  that 
the  Son  and  Spirit  are  each  also  God,  it  is  inferred^ 
not  that  there  are  three  Gods,  which  would  be  the 
proper  consequence,  but  that  there  are  three  per- 
*sons  in  the  Divinity.  But  Christ  having  been 
proved  to  be  God,  and  it  being  at  the  same  time 
regarded  by  Trinitarians  as  certain  that  he  was  a 
man,  it  is  inferred  also  that  he  was  both  God  and 
man.  The  stress  of  the  argument,  it  thus  appears, 
bears  upon  the  proposition  that  Christ  is  God,  the 
second  person  in  the  Trinity. 

Turning  away  our  view,  tnen,  lor  the  present, 
from  the  absurdities  that  are  involved  in  this  prop- 
osition, or  with  which  it  is  connected,  we  will  pro- 
ceed to  inquire,  as  if  it  were  capable  of  proof,  what 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  taught  concerning  it. 


SECTION  III. 

TH3    PROPOSITION,  THAT    CHRIST    IS    GOD,   PROVED    TO    BJI 
FALSE   FROM   THE   SCRIPTURE3. 

» 

LET  us  examine  the  Scriptures  in  respect  to  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  Trinitarianism ;  I  mean, 
particularly,  the  Christian  Scriptures;  for  the  evi- 
dence which  they  afford  will  render  any  considera- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament  unnecessary. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  then,  I  conceive,  that)  put- 
ting every  other  part  of  Scripture  out  of  view,  and 
forgetting'  all  that  it  teaches,  this  proposition  is 
clearly  proved  to  be  false  by  the  very  passages 
which  are  brought  in  its  support.  We  have  already 
had  occasion  to  advert  to  the  character  of  some  of 
these  passages,  and  I  shall  now  remark  upon  them 
a  little  more  fully.  They  are  supposed  to  prove 
that  Christ  is  God  in  the  highest  sense,  equal  to 
the  Father.  Let  us  see  what  they  really  prove. 

One  of  them  is  that  in  which  our  Saviour  prays : 
"  And  now,  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thyself, 
with  that  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the 
world  was."  John  xvii.  5. 

The  being  who  prayed  to  God  to  glorify  him, 
CANNOT  be  God. 

The  first  verse  of  John  needs  particular  explana- 
tion, and  I  shall  hereafter  recur  to  it  I  will  here 


66         REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW  TESTAMENT. 

only  observe,  that  if  by  the  term  Logos  be  meant, 
as  Trinitarians  believe,  an  intelligent  being,  a  per- 
son, and  this  person  be  Christ,  then  the  person 
who  was  WITH  God  could  not  have  been  God, 
except  in  a  metaphorical  or  secondary  acceptation 
of  the  terms,  or,  as  some  commentators  have  sup- 
posed, in  an  inferior  sense  of  the  word  ©eo?  ( God), 
• — it  being  used  not  as  a  proper,  but  as  a  common 
name. 

In  John  v.  22,  it  is  said,  according  to  the  com- 
mon version,  "  The  Father  judgeth  no  man  ;  but 
hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the  Son." 
"  The  Father  judgeth  no  man,  that  is,  without 
the  Son,"  says  a  noted  Orthodox  commentator, 
Gill,  "which  is  a  proof  of  their  equality."  A 
proof  of  their  equality  !  What,  is  it  God  to  whom 
all  judgment  is  committed  by  the  Father  ? 

We  proceed  to  Colossians  i.  15,  &c.,  and  here 
the  first  words  which  we  find  declare,  that  the 
being  spoken  of  is  "the  image  of  the  Invisible 
God."  Is  it  possible  that  any  one  can  believe, 
that  God  is  affirmed  by  the  Apostle  to  have  been 
the  image  of  God  ? 

Turn  now  to  Philippians  ii.  5—8.  Here,  ac- 
cording to  the  modern  Trinitarian  exposition,*  we 
are  told,  that  Christ,  who  was  God,  as  the  passage 
is  brought  to  prove,  did  not  regard  his  equality 
with  God  as  an  object  of  solicitous  desire,  but 
humbled  himself,  and  submitted  to  death,  even 


*  [The  exposition  and  translation  of  Professor  Stuart  are  here 
referred  to.    See  his  Letters  to  Dr.  Channing,  p.  93.] 


REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         67 

the  death  of  the  cross.  Can  any  one  imagine, 
that  he  is  to  prove  to  us  by  such  passages  as 
these,  that  the  being  to  whom  they  relate  is  the 
Infinite  Spirit? 

There  is  no  part  of  the  New  Testament  in  which 
the  language  concerning  Christ  is  more  figurative 
and  difficult,  than  that  of  the  first  four  verses  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  But  do  these  verses 
prove  that  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  believed  Christ 
to  be  God?  Let  us  take  the  common  version, 
certainly  as  favorable  as  any  to  this  supposition, 
and  consider  how  the  person  spoKen  of  is  de- 
scribed. He  is  one  appointed  by  God  to  be  heir 
of  all  things,  one  by  whom  God  made  the  worlds, 
the  image  of  his  person,  one  who  hath  sat  down  at 
the  right  hand  of  God,  one  who  hath  obtained  a 
more  excellent  name  than  the  angels.  Is  it  not 
wonderful  that  the  person  here  spoken  of  has 
been  believed  to  be  God  ?  And,  if  the  one  thing 
could  be  more  strange  than  the  other,  would  it 
not  be  still  more  wonderful  that  this  passage  has 
been  regarded  as  a  main  proof  of  the  doctrine  ? 

Look  next  at  Hebrews  i.  8,  9,  in  which  passage  we 
find  these  words.:  "Therefore  God,  even  thy  God, 
hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above 
thy  fellows."  Will  any  one  maintain  that  this 
language  is  used  concerning  a  being  who  pos- 
sessed essential  divinity  ?  If  passages  of  this  sort 
are  brought  by  any  one  to  establish  the  doctrine, 
by  what  use  of  language,  by  what  possible  state- 
ments, would  he  expect  it  to  be  disproved  ? 

There  are  few  arguments  on  which  more  stress 


68         REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW*  TESTAMENT. 

has  been  laid  by  Trinitarians,  than  on  the  applica- 
tion of  the  title  «  Son  of  God  "  to  Christ.  Yet  one 
who  had  for  the  first  time  heard  of  the  doctrine 
would  doubt,  I  think,  whether  a  disputant  who 
urged  this  argument  were  himself  unable  to  un- 
derstand the  meaning  of  language,  or  presumed 
on  the  incapacity  of  those  whom  he  addressed. 
To  prove  Christ  to  be  God,  a  title  is  adduced 
which  clearly  distinguishes  him  from  God.  To 
suppose  the  contrary,  is  to  suppose  that  Christ  is 
at  once  God  and  the  Son  of  God,  that  is,  his  own 
son,  unless  there  be  more  than  one  God. 

I  think  it  evident,  that  the  conclusion  of  the  fifth 
verse  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans,  and  the  quo- 
tation, Heb.  i.  10-12,  do  not  relate  to  Christ.  I 
conceive  that  they  relate  to  God,  the  Father.  Put- 
fing  these,  for  the  present,  out  of  the  question,  the 
passages  on  which  I  have  remarked  are  among  the 
principal  adduced  in  support  of  the  doctrine.  They 
stand  in  the  very  first  class  of  proof  texts.  Let 
any  man  put  it  to  his  conscience  what  they  do 
prove. 

Again,  it  is  inferred  that  Christ  is  God,  because 
it  is  said  that  he  will  judge  the  world.  To  do  this, 
it  is  maintained,  requires  omniscience,  and  omnis- 
cience is  the  attribute  of  divinity  alone.  I  answer, 
that,  whatever  we  may  think  of  the  judgment  of  the 
world  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  St.  Paul 
declares  that  God  will  judge  the  world  by  A  MAN* 
(not  a  God)  whom  HE  has  APPOINTED. 

•  "A  man,"  so  the  original  should  be  rendered,  not  "  that 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.     69 

Again,  it  is  argued  that  Christ  is  God,  because 
supreme  dominion  is  ascribed  to  him.  I  do  not 
now  inquire  what  is  meant  by  this  supreme  domin- 
ion ;  but  I  answer,  that  it  is  nowhere  ascribed  to  him 
in  stronger  language  than  in  the  following  passage. 
"  Then  will  be  the  end,  when  he  will  deliver  up  the 
kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father;  after  destroy- 
ing all  dominion,  and  all  authority  and  power. 
For  he  must  reign  till  He  [that  is,  God]  has  put 

all  his  enemies  under  his  feet And  when 

all  things  are  put  under  him,  then  will  the  Son 
himself  be  subject  to  Him  who  put  all  things 
under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  * 

No  words,  one  would  think,  could  more  clearly 
discriminate  Christ  from  God,  and  declare  his  de- 
pendence and  inferiority;  and,  of  necessity,  his 
infinite  inferiority.  I  say,  as  I  have  said  before, 
infinite  inferiority ;  because  an  inferior  and  de- 
ep dvdpl  o>  &pi(rc .  Acts  xvii.  31.  [Compare  Acts  x.  42 ;  John  v. 
22,  27  ;  Rom.  ii.  16.] 

*  1  Cor.  xv.  24  -  28.  [Compare  Matthew  xxviii.  18;  Ephesians  i. 
17-23;Philippiansii.  9-11;  John  Hi.  35 ;  Acts  ii.  36.  — As  an  il- 
lustration of  the  sort  of  reasoning  which  we  often  find  in  Trinitarian 
writings,  it  may,  perhaps,  be  worth  while  to  mention,  that  the  first 
three  passages  just  referred  to,  or  rather  fragments  of  them,  are  quoted 
in  a  publication  of  the  American  Tract  Society,  as  incontrovertible 
proofs  that  Christ  is  GOD.  See  Tract  No.  214,  entitled  "More  than 
One  Hundred  Scriptural  and  Incontrovertible  Arguments  for  be- 
lieving in  the  Supreme  Divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ."  The  21st  of  these  "  Arguments,"  for  example,  runs  thus  :  — 
Christ  is  God,  "  because  it  is  said  he  has  a  name  that  is  afjove 
every  name.  Phil.  ii.  9."  The  whole  verse,  of  which  a  few  words 
are  thus  quoted,  reads :  "  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him, 
and  GIVEN  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name."  See  also 
Arg.1,40,  72. J 


70        REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TEblAMENT. 

pendent   must  be   a   finite  being,  and  finite  and 
infinite  do  not  admit  of  comparison. 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  doctrine  under  con- 
sideration is  overthrown  by  the  very  arguments 
brought  in  its  support. 

II.  BUT  further ;  it  contradicts  the  express  and  re- 
iterated declarations  of  our  Saviour.  According  to 
the  doctrine  in  question,  it  was  THE  SON,  or  the 
second  person  in  the  Trinity,  who  was  united  to 
the  human  nature  of  Christ.  It  was  HIS  words, 
therefore,  that  Christ,  as  a  divine  teacher,  spoke; 
and  it  was  through  HIS  power  that  he  performed 
his  wonderful  works.  But  this  is  in  direct  con- 
tradiction to  the  declarations  of  Christ.  He  al- 
ways refers  the  divine  powers  which  he  exercised, 
and  the  divine  knowledge  which  he  discovered, 
to  the  Father,  and  never  to  any  other  person,  or  to 
the  Deity  considered  under  any  other  relation  or 
distinction.  Of  himself,  AS  THE  SON,  he  always 
speaks  as  of  a  being  entirely  dependent  upon  the 
Father. 

"  If  of  myself  I  assume  glory,  my  glory  is 
nothing;  it  is  my  Father  who  glorifies  me." 
John  viii.  54. 

"  As  the  Father  has  life  in  himself,  so  HAS  HE 
GRANTED  to  the  Son  also  to  have  life  in  himself." 
John  v.  26. 

This  is  a  verbal  translation.  A  more  intelligible 
rendering  would  be :  "  As  the  Father  is  the  source 
of  life,  so  has  he  granted  to  the  Son  also  to  be 
the  source  of  life." 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    71 

"  The  works  which  the  Father  HAS  GIVEN  ME  TO 
PERFORM  [i.e.  has  enabled  me  to  perform],  the  very 
works  which  I  am  doing,  testify  of  me,  that  the 
Father  has  sent  me."  John  v.  36. 

"  As  the  living  Father  has  sent  me,  and  I  LIVE 

DY  THE  FATHER,"  &C.      John  vL  57.* 

"I  have  not  spoken  from  myself;  but  He  who 
sent  me,  the  Father  himself  has  given  me  in 
charge  what  I  should  enjoin,  and  what  I  should 

teach What,  therefore,  I  teach,  I  teach 

as  the  Father  has  directed  me."  John  xii.  49,  50. 

"  The  words  which  you  hear  are  not  mine,  but 
the  Father's  who  sent  me."  John  xiv.  24. 

"  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me 
not."  John  x.  37. 

"  The  words  which  I  speak  to  you,  I  speak  not 
from  myself;  and  the  Father,  who  dwells  in  me, 
himself  does  the  works."  John  xiv.  10. 

"  THE  SON  can  do  NOTHING  OF  HIMSELF,  but 
only  what  he  sees  his  Father  doing."  John  v.  19. 

"  When  you  have  raised  on  high  the  Son  of  Man 
[i.  e.  crucified  him],  then  you  will  know  that  I  am 
He  [i.  e.  the  Messiah],  and  that  I  do  nothing  of  my- 
Belf,  but  speak  thus  as  the  Father  has  taught  me. 
And  He  who  sent  me  is  with  me."  John  viii.  28,  29. 

I  do  not  multiply  passages,  because  they  must 

*  "In  quoting  the  words  as  given  above,  I  have  followed  the 
Common  Version ;  but  the  verse  should  be  rendered  thus :  "  As 
the  ever-blessed  Father  sent  me,  and  I  am  blessed  through  the  Fa- 
ther, so  he,  whose  food  I  am,  shall  be  blessed  through  me."  Zao», 
in  this  verse,  is  used  in  the  secondary  signification  which  it  so  often 
has,  denoting,  I  am  blessed,  I  am  happy. 
11 


/  REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

be  familiar  to  every  one.  From  the  declarations 
of  our  Saviour,  it  appears  that  he  constantly  re- 
ferred the  divine  power  manifested  in  his  miracles, 
and  the  divine  inspiration  by  which  he  spoke,  to 
the  Father,  and  not  to  any  other  divine  person 
such  as  Trinitarians  suppose.  According  to  their 
hypothesis,  it  was  the  divine  power  and  wisdom 
of  the  Son  which  were  displayed  in  Jesus ;  to 
him,  therefore,  should  the  miracles  and  doctrine 
*»f  Jesus  have  been  referred ;  which  they  never 
are.  No  mention  of  such  a  divine  person  ap- 
pears in  his  discourses.  But  of  himself,  as  the 
Son  of  God,  he  speaks  as  of  a  being  entirely 
dependent  upon  his  Father  and  our  Father,  his 
God  and  our  God.  These  declarations  are  de- 
cisive of  the  controversy.  Every  other  argument 
might  be  laid  aside. 

III.  BUT,  in  the  third  place,  the  doctrine  that 
Christ  is  God  is  opposed  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
Scriptures^  and  all  the  facts  in  the  history  of  Christ. 
Though  conceived  by  a  miracle,  he  was  born  into 
the  world  as  other  men  are,  and  such  as  other  men 
are.  He  did  not  come,  as  some  of  the  Jews  imag- 
ined their  Messiah  would  come,  no  man  knew 
whence.*  He  was  a  helpless  infant.  Will  any 
one,  at  the  present  day,  shock  our  feelings  and 
understanding  to  the  uttermost,  by  telling  us  that 
Almighty  God  was  incarnate  in  this  infant,  and 

*  "We  know  whence  this  man  is    whereas  when  the  Messiah 
comes,  no  one  will  know  whence  he  is  '    John  vii.  27 


REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         73 

wrapped  in  swaddling-clothes  ?  *  He  grew  in 
wisdom,  and  in  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God 
and  men.  Read  over  his  history  in  the  Evange- 
lists, and  ask  yourselves  if  you  are  not  reading  the 
history  of  a  man ;  though  of  one  indeed  to  whom 
God  had  given  his  spirit  without  measure,  whom 
he  had  intrusted  with  miraculous  powers,  and  con- 
stituted a  messenger  of  the  most  important  truths. 
He  appears  with  all  the  attributes  of  humanity. 
He  discovers  human  affections.  He  is  moved 
even  to  tears  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus.  He  mourns 
over  the  calamities  about  to  overwhelm  his  coun- 
try. While  enduring  the  agony  of  crucifixion,  he 
discovers  the  strength  of  his  filial  affection,  and 
consigns  his  mother  to  the  care  of  the  disciple 
whom  he  loved.  He  was  sometimes  excited  to 
indignation,  and  his  soul  was  sometimes  troubled 
by  the  sufferings  which  he  endured,  and  which  he 
anticipated.  "  Now  is  my  soul  troubled ;  and 
what  shall  I  say?  Father,  save  me  from  this 
hour?  But  for  this  I  came,  —  for  this  very  hour."f 
Devotion  is  the  virtue  of  a  created  and  dependent 
being.  But  our  Saviour  has  left  us  not  less  an 
example  of  piety  than  of  benevolence.  His  ex- 

*  Dr.  Watts  in  one  of  his  hymns  says : 

"  This  infant  is  the  MIGHTY  GOD, 
Come  to  be  suckled  and  adored."  —  B.  I.,  H.  13. 

The  language  is  almost  too  horrible  to  be  quoted.  —  Dr.  Watts 
was  a  man  of  piety,  and  of  very  considerable  intellectual  powers ;  yet 
to  this  extreme  point  could  his  mind  be  debased  by  a  belief  of  the 
doctrine  against  which  we  are  contending. 

t  John  xii.  27. 


74    REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

pressions  of  dependence  upon  his  Father  and  upon 
our  Father,  are  the  most  absolute  and  unequivocal. 
4Ie  felt  the  common  wants  of  our  nature,  hunger, 
thirst,  and  weariness.  He  suffered  death,  the  com- 
mon lot  of  man.  He  endured  the  cross,  despising 
the  shame,  and  he  did  this  for  THE  JOY  SET  BEFORE 
HIM.*  u  Therefore  God  has  HIGHLY  EX  \LTED  HiM."f 
But  it  is  useless  to  quote  or  allude  to  particular 
passages,  which  prove  that  Christ  was  a  being 
distinct  from,  inferior  to,  and  dependent  upon 
God.  You  may  find  them  on  every  page  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  proof  of  this  fact  is, 
as  I  have  said,  imbedded  and  ingrained  in  the 
very  passages  brought  to  support  a  contrary  propo- 
sition. 

But  it  is  useless,  for  another  reason,  to  adduce 
arguments  in  proof  of  this  fact.  It  is  conceded  by 
Trinitarians  explicitly  and  fully.  The  doctrine  of 
the  humanity  of  Christ  is  as  essential  a  .part  of 
their  scheme  as  the  doctrine  of  his  divinity.  They 
allow,  or,  to  speak  more  properly,  they  contend, 
that  he  was  a  man.  But  if  this  be  trtfe,  then  the 
only  question  that  need  be  examined  is,  whether  it 
be  possible  for  Christ  to  have  been  at  once  God 
and  man,  infinite  and  finite,  omniscient  and  not 
omniscient,  omnipotent  and  not  omnipotent.  To 
my  mind,  the  propositions  here  supposed  are  as  if 
one  were  to  say,  that  to  be  sure  astronomers  have 
correctly  estimated  the  size  of  the  earth ;  but  that 
it  does,  notwithstan  iing,  fill  infinite  space. 

*  Hebrews  xii.  2.  t  [Philippians  ii.  9.]  • 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    75 

IV.  IN  the  next  place,  the  doctrine  is  proved  to 
be  false,  because  it  is  evident  from  the  Scripture* 
that  none  of  those  effects  were  produced  which  would 
necessarily  have  resulted  from  its  first  annunciation 
by  Christ,  and  its  subsequent  communication  by  his 
Apostles.  The  disciples  of  our  Saviour  must,  at 
some  period,  have  considered  him  merely  as  a 
man.  Such  he  was,  to  all  appearance,  and  such, 
therefore,  they  must  have  believed  him  to  be.  Be- 
fore he  commenced  his  ministry,  his  relations  and 
fellow-townsmen  certainly  regarded  him  as  noth- 
ing more  than  a  man.  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter, 
the  son  of  Mary,  and  brother  of  James  and  Joses 
and  Judas  and  Simon  ?  And  are  not  his  sisters 
here  with  us?"*  At  some  particular  period,  the 
3ommunication  must  have  been  made  by  our  Sav- 
iour to  his  disciples,  that  he  was  not  a  mere  man, 
but  that  he  was,  properly  speaking,  and  in  the 
highest  sense,  God  himself.  The  doctrines  with 
which  we  are  contending,  and  other  doctrines  of  a 
similar  character,  have  so  obscured  and  confused 
the  whole  of  Christianity,  that  even  its  historical 
facts  appear  to  be  regarded  by  many  scarcely  in 
the  light  of  real  occurrences.  But  we  may  carry 
ourselves  back  in  imagination  to  the  time  when 
Christ  was  on  earth,  and  place  ourselves  in  the 

*  Mark  vi.  3.  I  have  retained  the  words  "  brother "  and  "  sis- 
ters," used  in  the  Common  Version,  not  thinking  it  important,  in  the 
connection  in  which  the  passage  is  quoted,  to  make  any  change  in 
this  rendering ;  but  the  relationship  intended  I  believe  to  be  that  of 
cousins.  [See  the  note  on  Matthew  xiii.  55,  in  the  author's  Notes  on 
(he  Gospels.] 


76         ftEASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

situation  of  the  first  believers.  Let  us,  then,  reflect 
for  a  moment  on  what  would  be  the  state  of  our 
own  feelings,  if  some  one  with  whom  we  had  as- 
sociated as  a  man  were  to  declare  to  us  that  he 
was  really  God  h'mself.  If  his  character  and 
works  had  been  such  as  to  command  any  atten- 
tion to  such  an  assertion,  still  through  what  an 
agony  of  incredulity,  and  doubt,  and  amazement, 
and  consternation  must  the  mind  pass,  before  it 
could  settle  down  into  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of 
his  declaration  !  And  when  convinced  of  its  truth, 
with  what  unspeakable  astonishment  should  we 
be  overwhelmed!  With  what  extreme  awe,  and 
entire  prostration  of  every  faculty,  should  we  ap- 
proach and  contemplate  such  a  being!  if  indeed 
man,  in  his  present  tenement  of  clay,  could  endure 
such  intercourse  with  his  Maker.  With  what  a 
strong  and  unrelaxing  grasp  would  the  idea  seize 
upon  our  minds!  How  continually  would  it  be 
expressed  in  the  most  forcible  language,  whenever 
we  had  occasion  to  speak  of  him !  What  a  deep 
and  indelible  coloring  would  it  give  to  every 
thought  and  sentiment  in  the  remotest  degree 
connected  with  an  agent  so  mysterious  and  so 
awful !  But  we  perceive  nothing  of  this  state  of 
mind  in  the  disciples  of  our  Saviour;  but  much 
that  gives  evidence  of  a  very  different  state  ol 
mind.  One  may  read  over  the  first  three  Evange- 
lists, and  it  must  be  by  a  more  than  ordinary  exer- 
cise of  ingenuity,  if  he  discover  what  may  pass  for 
an  argument  that  either  the  writers,  or  the  numer- 
ous individuals  of  whom  they  speak,  regarded  our 


REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         77 

Saviour  as  their  Maker  and  God ;  or  that  he  ever 
assumed  that  character.  Can  we  believe,  that,  if 
such  a  most  extraordinary  annunciation  as  has 
been  supposed  had  ever  actually  been  made  by 
him,  no  particular  record  of  its  circumstances,  and 
immediate  effects,  would  have  been  preserved?  — 
that  the  Evangelists  in  their  accounts  of  their 
Master  would  have  omitted  the  most  remarkable 
event  in  his  history  and  their  own?  —  and  that 
three  of  them  at  least  (for  so  much  must  be  con- 
ceded) would  have  made  no  direct  mention  of  far 
the  most  astonishing  fact  in  relation  to  his  char- 
acter ?  Read  over  the  accounts  of  the  conduct 
and  conversation  of  his  disciples  with  their  Master, 
and  put  it  to  your  own  feelings  whether  they  ever 
thought  that  they  were  conversing  with  their  God. 
Read  over  these  accounts  attentively,  and  ask  your- 
self if  this  supposition  do  not  appear  to  you  one 
of  the  most  incongruous  that  ever  entered  the 
human  mind.  Take  only  the  facts  and  conver- 
sation which  occurred  the  night  before  our  Sav- 
iour's crucifixion,  as  related  by  St.  John.  Did 
Judas  believe  that  he  was  betraying  his  God? 
Their  Master  washed  the  feet  of  his  Apostles. 
Did  the  Apostles  believe  —  but  the  question  is  too 
shocking  to  be  stated  in  plain  words.  Did  they 
then  believe  their  Master  to  be  God,  when,  sur- 
prised at  his  taking  notice  of  an  inquiry  which 
they  wished  to  make,  but  which  they  had  not  in 
fact  proposed,*  they  thus  addressed  him  ?  "  Now 

•  See  John  xvi.  17-19. 


78         REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

we  perceive  that  you  know  all  things,  and  need 
not  that  any  one  should  question  you.  By  this 
we  believe  that  you  came  from  God."*  Could 
they  imagine  that  he  who,  throughout  his  conver- 
sation, spoke  of  himself  only  as  the  minister  of 
God,  and  who  in  their  presence  prayed  to  God, 
was  himself  the  Almighty  ?  Did  they  believe  that 
it  was  the  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth  whom  they 
were  deserting,  when  they  left  him  upon  his  appre- 
hension ?  But  there  is  hardly  a  fact  or  conversa- 
tion recorded  in  the  history  of  our  Saviour's  min- 
istry which  may  not  afford  ground  for  such  ques- 
tions as  have  been  proposed.  He  who  maintains 
that  the  first  disciples  of  our.  Saviour  did  ever 
really  believe  that  they  were  in  the  immediate 
presence  of  their  God,  must  maintain  at  the  same 
time  that  they  were  a  class  of  men  by  themselves, 
and  that  all  their  feelings  and  conduct  were  im- 
measurably and  inconceivably  different  from  what 
those  of  any  other  human  beings  would  have  been 
under  the  same  belief.  But  beside  the  entire  ab- 
sence of  that  state  of  mind  which  must  have  been 
produced  by  this  belief,  there  are  other  continual 
indications,  direct  and  indirect,  of  their  opinions 
and  feelings  respecting  their  Master,  wholly  ir- 
reconcilable with  the  supposition  of  its  existence 
during  any  period  of  his  ministry,  or  their  own. 
Throughout  the  New  Testament,  we  find  nothing 
which  implies  that  such  a  most  extraordinary 
change  of  feeling  ever  took  place  in  the  disciples 

*  John  xvi.  30. 


REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.          79 

of  Christ  as  must  have  been  produced  by  the  com- 
munication that  their  Master  was  God  himself 
upon  earth.  Nowhere  do  we  find  the  expression 
of  those  irresistible  and  absorbing  sentiments 
which  must  have  possessed  their  minds  under  the 
conviction  of  this  fact.  With  this  conviction,  in 
what  terms,  for  instance,  would  they  have  spoken 
of  his  crucifixion,  and  of  the  circumstances  with 
which  it  was  attended  ?  The  power  of  language 
would  have  sunk  under  them  in  the  attempt  to 
express  their  feelings.  Their  words,  when  they 
approached  the  subject,  would  have  been  little 
more  than  a  thrilling  cry  of  horror  and  indigna- 
tion. On  this  subject  they  did  indeed  feel  most 
deeply ;  but  can  we  think  that  St.  Peter  regarded 
his  Master  as  God  incarnate,  when  he  thus  ad- 
dressed the  Jews  by  whom  Christ  had  just  been 
crucified  ?  "  Men  of  Israel,  hear  these  words : 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  proved  to  you  TO  BE  A  MAN 
FROM  GOD,  by  miracles  and  wonders  and  signs, 
which  God  did  by  him  in  the  midst  of  you,  as  you 
yourselves  know,  him,  delivered  up  to  you  in 
conformity  to  the  fixed  will  and  foreknowledge  of 
God,  you  have  crucified  and  slain  by  the  hands 
of  the  heathen.  Him  has  God  raised  to  life."  * 

But  what  have  been  stated  are  not  the  only  con- 
sequences which  must  necessarily  have  followed 
from  the  communication  of  the  doctrine  in  ques- 
tion. It  cannot  be  denied  by  those  who  hold  the 
doctrine  of  the  deity  of  Christ,  that,  however  satis- 

Acts  ii.  23  -  24. 


80    REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

factorily  it  may  be  explained,  and  however  well  it 
may  be  reconciled  with  that  fundamental  princi- 
ple of  religion  to  which  the  Jews  were  so  strongly 
attached,  the  doctrine  of  the  Unity  of  God,  yet  it 
does,  or  may,  at  first  sight,  appear  somewhat  in- 
consistent with  it.  From  the  time  of  the  Jew 
who  is  represented  by  Justin  Martyr  as  disputing 
vrith  him,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
to  the  present  period,  it  has  always  been  regarded 
by  the  unbelieving  Jews  with  abhorrence.  They 
have  considered  the  Christians  as  no  better  than 
idolaters ;  as  denying  the  first  truth  of  religion. 
But  the  unbelieving  Jews,  in  the  time  of  the 
Apostles,  opposed  Christianity  with  the  utmost 
bitterness  and  passion.  They  sought  on  every 
side  for  objections  to  it.  There  was  much  in  its 
character  to  which  the  believing  Jews  could  hardly 
be  reconciled.  The  Epistles  are  full  of  statements, 
explanations,  and  controversy  relating  to  questions 
having  their  origin  in  Jewish  prejudices  and  pas- 
sions. With  regard,  however,  to  this  doctrine, 
which,  if  it  had  ever  been  taught,  the  believing 
Jews  must  have  received  with  the  utmost  diffi- 
culty, and  to  which  the  unbelieving  Jews  would 
have  manifested  the  most  determined  opposition, 
—  with  regard  to  this  doctrine,  there  is  no  trace 
of  any  controversy.  But  if  it  had  ever  been 
taught,  it  must  have  been  the  main  point  of  at- 
tack and  defence  between  those  who  assailed  and 
those  who  supported  Christianity.  There  is  noth- 
ing ever  said  in  its  explanation.  But  it  must  have 
required,  far  more  than  any  other  doctrine,  to  be 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    81 

explained,  illustrated,  and  enforced  ;  for  it  appears 
not  only  irreconcilable  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Unity  of  God,  but  equally  so  with  that  of  the 
humanity  of  our  Saviour ;  and  yet  both  these  doc- 
trines, it  seems,  were  to  be  maintained  in  connec- 
tion with  it.  It  must  have  been  necessary,  there- 
fore,  to  state  it  as  clearly  as  possible,  to  exhibit  it 
in  its  relations,  and  carefully  to  guard  against  the 
misapprehensions  to  which  it  is  so  liable  on  every 
side.  Especially  must  care  have  been  taken  to 
prevent  the  gross  mistakes  into  which  the  Gentile 
converts  from  polytheism  were  likely  to  fall.  Yet, 
so  far  from  any  such  clearness  of  statement  and 
fulness  of  explanation,  the  whole  language  of  the 
New  Testament  in  relation  to  this  subject  is  (as  I 
have  before  said)  a  series  of  enigmas,  upon  the 
supposition  of  its  truth.  The  doctrine,  then,  is 
never  defended  in  the  New  Testament,  though 
unquestionably  it  would  have  been  the  main  ob- 
ject of  attack,  and  the  main  difficulty  in  the  Chris- 
tian system.  It  is  never  explained,  though  no 
doctrine  could  have  been  so  much  in  need  of  ex- 
planation. On  the  contrary,  upon  the  supposition 
of  its  truth,  the  Apostles  express  themselves  in 
such  a  manner,  that,  if  it  had  been  their  purpose 
to  darken  and  perplex  the  subject,  they  could  not 
have  done  it  more  effectually.  And  still  more, 
this  doctrine  is  never  insisted  upon  as  a  necessary 
article  of  faith  ;  though  it  is  now  represented  by 
its  defenders  as  lying  at  the  foundation  of  Chris- 
tianity. With  a  few  exceptions,  the  passages  in 
which  it  is  imagined  to  be  taught  are  introduced 


REASONING     FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

incidentally,  the  attention  of  the  writer  being  prin- 
cipally directed  to  some  other  topic ;  and  can  be 
regarded  only  as  accidental  notices  of  it.  It  ap- 
pears, then,  that  while  other  questions  of  far  less 
difficulty  (for  instance,  the  circumcision  of  the 
Gentile  converts)  were  subjects  of  such  doubt  and 
controversy  that  even  the  authority  of  the  Apostles 
was  barely  sufficient  to  establish  the  truth,  this 
doctrine,  so  extraordinary,  so  obnoxious,  and  so 
hard  to  be  understood,  was  introduced  in  silence, 
and  received  without  hesitation,  dislike,  opposi- 
tion, or  misapprehension.  There  are  not  many 
propositions,  to  be  proved  or  disproved  merely  by 
moral  evidence,  which  are  more  incredible. 

1  WISH  to  repeat  some  of  the  ideas  already  sug- 
gested, in  a  little -different  connection.  The  doc- 
trine that  Christ  was  God  himself,  appearing  upon 
earth  to  make  atonement  for  the  sins  of  men,  is 
represented,  by  those  who  maintain  it,  as  a  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  Christianity,  affecting  essen- 
tially the  whole  character  of  our  religion.  If  true, 
it  must  indeed  have  affected  essentially  the  whole 
character  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament. 
A  truth  of  such  awful  and  tremendous  interest,  a 
fact  "at  which  reason  stands  aghast,  and  faith 
herself  is  half  confounded,"*  a  doctrine  so  adapted 

*  Such  is  the  language  of  Bishop  Kurd  in  defending  the  doctrine. 
"  In  this  awfully  stupendous  manner,  at  which  REASON  STANDS 

AGHAST,    AND      FAITH    HERSELF    IS     HALF     CONFOUNDED,    was     the 

grace  of  God  to  man  at  length  manifested."  Sermons  preached  at 
Lincoln's  Inn,  Vol.  II.  p.  287:  London,  1785. 


REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         83 

to  seize  upon  and  possess  the  imagination  and 
the  feelings,  and  at  once  so  necessary  and  so 
difficult  to  be  understood,  must  have  appeared 
everywhere  in  the  New  Testament  in  the  most 
prominent  relief.  Nobody,  one  would  think,  can 
seriously  imagine  it  any  answer  to  this  remark,  to 
say  that  "the  Apostles  doubtless  expected  to  be 
believed  when  they  had  once  plainly  asserted  any- 
thing"; or  to  suggest  that  their  veracity  might 
have  been  suspected,  if  they  had  made  frequent 
and  constant  asseverations  of  the  truth  of  the  doc- 
trine.* What  was  the  business  of  the  Apostles 
but  to  teach  and  explain,  to  enforce  and  defend, 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity  ?  I  say 
to  defend  these  doctrines ;  for  he  who  reads  the 
Epistles  with  any  attention,  will  not  think  that 
the  mere  authority  of  an  Apostle  was  decisive  in 
bearing  down  at  once  all  error,  doubt,  and  opposi- 
tion among  believers.  Even  if  this  had  been  the 
case,  their  converts  must  still  have  been  furnished 
with  some  answer  to  those  objections  with  which 
the  unbelieving  Jews  would  have  assailed  a  doc- 
trine so  apparently  incredible,  and  so  abhorrent  to 
their  feelings.  From  the  very  nature  of  the  human 
mind,  if  the  minds  of  the  Apostles  at  all  resembled 
those  of  other  men,  the  fact  that  their  Master  was 
the  Almighty,  clothed  in  flesh,  must  have  appeared 
continually  in  their  writings,  in  direct  assertions,  in 
allusions,  in  the  strongest  possible  expressions  of 
feeling,  in  a  thousand  different  forms.  The  intrin- 


*  See  Professor  Stuart's  Letters,  p  128. 
12 


84         REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

sic  difficulty  of  the  doctrine  in  question  is  so  great, 
and  such  was  the  ignorance  of  the  first  converts, 
and  their  narrowness  of  conception,  that  the  Apos- 
tles must  have  continually  recurred  to  it,  for  the 
purpose  of  explaining  it,  and  guarding  it  against 
misapprehension.  As  a  fundamental  doctrine  of 
our  religion,  it  is  one  which  they  must  have  been 
constantly  employed  in  teaching.  If  it  were  a 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  the  evidence  for  it  would 
burst  from  every  part  of  the  New  Testament  in  a 
blaze  of  light.  Can  any  one  think  that  we  should 
be  left  to  collect  the  proof  of  a  fundamental  article 
of  our  faith,  and  the  evidence  of  incomparably  the 
most  astonishing  fact  that  ever  occurred  upon  our 
earth,  from  some  expressions  scattered  here  and 
there,  the  greater  part  of  them  being  dropped  inci- 
dentally; and  that  really  one  of  the  most  plausi- 
ble arguments  for  it  would  be  found  in  the  omis- 
sion of  the  Greek  article  in  four  or  five  texts  ? 
Can  any  one  think  that  such  a  doctrine  would 
have  been  so  taught,  that,  putting  out  of  view  the 
passages  above  referred  to,  the  whole  remaining 
body  of  the  New  Testament,  the  whole  history  of 
our  Saviour,  and  the  prevailing  and  almost  uni- 
form language  of  his  Apostles,  should  appear,  at 
least,  to  be  thoroughly  irreconcilable  with  it?  I 
speak,  it  will  be  remembered,  merely  of  the  propo- 
sition that  Christ  is  God.  With  regard  to  the 
doctrine  of  his  double  nature,  or  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  it  cannot,  as  I  have  said,  be  pretended 
that  either  of  these  is  anywhere  directly  taught. 
The  whole  New  Testament,  the  Gospels  and  the 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    85 

Epistles,  present  another  aspect  from  what  they 
must  have  done,  if  the  doctrines  maintained  by 
Trinitarians  were  true.  If  true,  it  is  incredible 
that  they  should  not  have  appeared  in  the  Scrip- 
tures in  a  form  essentially  different  from  that  in 
which  alone  it  can  be  pretended  that  they  do  at 
present. 

V.  IN  treating  of  the  argument  from  Scripture, 
I  have  thus  .far  reasoned  ad  hominem;  as  if  the 
doctrine  that  Christ  is  God,  in  the  Trinitarian 
sense  of  the  words,  were  capable  of  proof.  But  I 
must  now  advert  to  the  essential  character  of  the 
doctrine.  It  admits  of  being1  understood  in  no  sense 
which  is  not  obviously  false  ;  and  therefore  it  is  im- 
possible that  it  should  have  been  taught  by  Christ, 
if  he  were  a  teacher  from  God. 

From  the  nature  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrines, 
there  is  a  liability  to  embarrassment  in  the  whole 
of  our  reasoning  from  Scripture  against  them  ;  it 
being  impossible  to  say  definitely  what  is  to  be 
disproved.  I  have  endeavored,  however,  to  direct 
the  argument  in  such  a  manner  as  to  meet  those 
errors  in  any  form  they  may  assume.  That  so 
many  have  held,  or  professed  to  hold  them,  (a  phe- 
nomenon one  of  the  most  remarkable  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  human  mind,)  is  principally  to  be  ex- 
plained by  the  fact,  that  the  language  in  which 
they  are  stated,  taken  in  its  obvious  sense,  ex- 
presses propositions  so  utterly  incredible.  Starting 
off  from  its  obvious  meaning,  the  mind  has  re- 
course to  conceptions  of  its  own^  obscure,  unde- 


86         REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT, 

fined,  and  unsettled ;  which,  by  now  assuming 
one  shape  and  then  another,  elude  the  grasp  of 
reason.  In  disproving  from  the  Scriptures  the 
proposition  that  Christ  is  God,  the  arguments 
that  have  been  urged,  I  trust,  bear  upon  it  in  any 
Trinitarian  sense  which  it  may  be  imagined  to 
express.  But  what  does  a  Trinitarian  mean  by 
this  proposition  ?  Let  us  assume  that  the  title 
"  Son  of  God,"  applied  to  Christ,  denotes,  in  some 
sense  or  other,  proper  essential  divinity.  But  the 
Son  is  but  one  of  three  who  constitute  God.  You 
may  substitute  after  the  numerals  the  word  person, 
or  distinction,  or  any  other  j  it  will  not  affect  the 
argument.  God  is  a  being ;  and  when  you  have 
named  Christ  or  the  Son,  you  have  not,  according 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  named  all  which 
constitutes  this  being.  The  Trinitarian  asserts 
that  God  exists  in  three  persons;  or,  to  take  the 
wholly  unimportant  modification  of  the  doctrine 
that  some  writers  have  attempted  to  introduce, 
that  "  God  is  three  in  a  certain  respect."  But 
Christ,  it  is  also  affirmed,  is  God,  the  Son  is  God. 
Does  he,  then,  exist  in  three  persons  ?  Is  he  three 
in  a  certain  respect?  Unquestionably  not.  The 
word  "  God"  is  used  in  two  senses.  In  one  case, 
as  applied  to  the  Supreme  Being,  properly,  in  the 
only  sense  which  a  Christian  can  recognize  as  the 
literal  sense  of  the  term  ;  in  the  other  case,  as  ap- 
plied to  Christ,  though  professedly  in  the  same, 
yet  clearly  and  necessarily  in  a  different  significa- 
tion, no  one  can  tell  what. 

Again :  the  Father  is  God.      Nothing  can  be 


KEASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    87 

added  to  his  infinity  or  perfections  to  complete 
our  idea  of  God.  Confused  as  men's  minds  have 
been  by  the  doctrine  we  are  opposing,  there  is  no 
one  who  would  not  shrink  from  expressly  asserting 
anything  to  be  wanting  to  constitute  the  Father 
God,  in  the  most  absolute  and  comprehensive 
sense  of  the  term.  His  conceptions  must  be  mis- 
erably perplexed  and  perverted,  who  thinks  it  pos- 
sible to  use  language  on  this  subject  too  strong  or 
too  unlimited.  In  the  Father  is  all  that  we  can 
conceive  of  as  constituting  God.  And  there  is 
but  one  God.  In  the  Father,  therefore,  exists  all 
that  we  can  conceive  of  as  constituting  the  One 
and  Only  God.  But  it  is  contended  that  Christ 
also  is  God.  What,  however,  can  any  one  mean 
oy  this  proposition,  who  understands  and  assents 
to  the  perfectly  intelligible  and  indisputable  propo- 
sitions just  stated  ?  Is  the  meaning,  that  Christ 
as  well  as  the  Father  —  or,  if  the  Father  be  God, 
we  must  say,  as  well  as  God  —  is  the  One  and 
Only  God?  Is  it  that  we  are  in  error  about  the 
unity  of  God,  and  that  Christ  is  another  God  ? 
No  one  will  assent  to  either  of  these  senses  of  the 
proposition.  Does  it  imply,  then,  that  neither  the 
Father  nor  the  Son  is  the  One  and  Only  God,  but 
that  together  with  another,  the  Holy  Spirit,  they 
constitute  this  mysterious  Being?  This  seems  at 
first  view  more  conformed  to  the  doctrine  to  be 
maintained ;  but  it  must  be  observed,  that  he  who 
adopts  this  sense  asserts,  not  that  Christ  is  God, 
but  that  he  is  not  God ;  and  asserts  at  the  same 
time  that  the  Father  is  not  God. 
12* 


88    REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Once  more:  if  Christ  be  God,  and  if  there  be 
but  one  God,  then  all  that  is  true  of  God  is  true 
of  Christ,  considered  as  God;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  all  that  is  true  of  the  Son  is  true  of  God. 
This  being  so,  open  the  Bible,  and  where  the  name 
of  God  occurs,  substitute  that  of  the  Son;  and 
where  the  name  of  the  Son  occurs,  that  of  God. 
"The  Son  sent  his  beloved  Son";  "Father,  the 
hour  is  come ;  glorify  thy  Son  that  thy  Son  also 
may  glorify  Thee."  I  will  not,  for  the  sake  of  con- 
futing any  error,  put  a  chango  on  this  most  solemn 
and  affecting  passage.  I  have  felt  throughout  the 
painful  incongruity  of  introducing  conceptions  that 
ought  to  be  accompanied  with  very  different  feel- 
ings and  associations  into  such  a  discussion,  and  I 
am  not  disposed  to  pursue  the  mode  just  sug- 
gested of  exemplifying  the  nature  of  the  errors 
against  which  I  am  contending.  But  one  who 
had  never  seen  the  New  Testament  before  would 
need  but  to  read  a  page  of  it  to  satisfy  himself 
that  "  the  Son  of  God  "  and  «  God  "  are  not  con- 
vertible terms,  but  mean  something  very  different. 

But  a  Trinitarian  may  answer  me,  that  the  word 
"  God  "  in  the  New  Testament  almost  always  de- 
notes either  the  Trinity  or  the  Father;  and  that 
he  does  not  suppose  it  to  be  applied  to  the  Son  in 
more  than  about  a  dozen  instances.  One  would 
think  that  this  state  of  the  case  must,  at  the  first 
view  of  it,  startle  a  defender  of  the  doctrine  that 
Christ-  is  God.  It  is  strange  that  one  equal  to  the 
Father  in  every  divine  perfection  should  so  rarely 
W  denoted  by  that  name  to  which  he  is  equally 


REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         89 

entitled.  But  passing  over  this  difficulty,  what  is 
the  purport  of  the  answer?  You  maintain  that 
Christ  is  God,  that  the  Son  is  God.  If  so,  are  not 
all  the  acts  of  God  his  acts  ?  Is  not  all  that  can 
be  affirmed  of  God  to  be  affirmed  of  him  ?  You 
hesitate,  perhaps ;  but  there  is  no  reason  why  you 
should.  If  there  be  any  meaning  in  the  New 
Testament,  these  questions  must  be  answered  in 
the  negative.  It  is  clear,  then,  that,  whatever  you 
may  imagine,  you  do  not  use  the  term  "  God  "  in 
the  same  sense  when  applied  to  the  Son,  as  when 
applied  by  you  to  what  you  call  the  Trinity,  or  to 
the  First  Person  of  the  Trinity;  or  as  when  ap- 
plied either  by  you  or  us  to  the  Supreme  Being. 
But,  as  regards  the  question  under  discussion, 
the  word  admits  of  no  variety  of  signification. 
The  proposition,  then,  that  Christ  is  God,  is  so 
thoroughly  irreconcilable  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  no  one  could  think  of  maintaining  it 
except  through  a  confused  misapprehension  of  its 
meaning. 

HERE,  then,  I  close  the  argument  Irom  Scrip- 
ture; not  because  it  is  exhausted,  but  because  it 
must  be  useless  to  pursue  it  further.*  I  will  only 
add  a  few  general  remarks,  founded  in  part  on 
what  has  been  already  said  concerning  the  pas- 

*  [The  reader  who  wishes  to  pursue  it  further  is  referred  to  Wil- 
son's M  Scripture  Proofs  and  Scriptural  Illustrations  of  Unitarianism," 
3d  ed.,  1846,  870,  —  a  work  which  gives  a  fuller  view  than  can  easily 
be  found  elsewhere,  not  only  of  the  Scripture  proofs  of  Unitarianism, 
but  of  the  alleged  Scripture  evidence  for  Trinitarianisra.] 


90         REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

sages  adduced  by  Trinitarians  in  support  of  thei 
doctrines. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  recollected  that  the 
passages  urged  to  prove  that  Christ  is  God  are 
alone  sufficient  evidence  against  this  proposition 
A  large  portion  of  them  contain  language  which 
cannot  be  used  concerning  God,  which  necessarily 
distinguishes  Christ  from  God,  and  which  clearly 
represents  him  as  an  inferior  and  dependent  being. 

In  the  next  place,  I  wish  to  recall  another  re- 
mark to  the  recollection  of  my  readers.  It  is,  that 
the  doctrines  maintained  by  Trinitarians,  upon  the 
supposition  of  their  possibility  and  truth,  must 
have  been  taught  very  differently  from  the  manner 
in  which  they  are  supposed  to  be.  Let  any  one 
recollect,  that  THERE  is  NO  PRETENCE  THAT  ANY 
PASSAGE  IN  SCRIPTURE  AFFIRMS  THE  DOCTRINE  OF 
THE  TRINITY,  OR  THAT  OF  THE  DOUBLE  NATURE 
OF  CHRIST  ;  and  then  let  him  look  over  the  pas- 
sages brought  to  prove  that  Christ  is  God ;  let  him 
consider  how  they  are  collected  from  one  place  and 
another,  how  thinly  they  are  scattered  through  the 
New  Testament,  and  how  incidentally  they  are 
introduced  ;  let  him  observe  that,  in  a  majority  of 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  there  is  not  one 
on  which  a  wary  disputant  would  choose  to  rely ; 
and  then  let  him  remember  the  general  tenor  of 
the  Christian  Scriptures,  and  the  undisputed  mean- 
ing of  far  the  greater  part  of  their  language  in 
relation  to  this  subject.  Having  done  this,  I  think 
he  may  safely  say,  before  any  critical  examination 
of  the  meaning  of  those  passages,  that  their  mean* 


REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         91 

ing  must  have  been  mistaken ;  that  the  evidence 
adduced  is  altogether  defective  in  its  general  as- 
pect;  and  that  it  is  not  by  such  detached  passages 
as  these,  taken  in  a  sense  opposed  to  the  general 
tenor  of  the  Scriptures,  that  a  doctrine  like  that  in 
question  can  be  established.  We  might  as  rea- 
sonably attempt  to  prove,  in  opposition  to  the 
daily  witness  of  the  heavens,  that  there  are  three 
suns  instead  of  but  one,  by  building  an  argument 
on  the  accounts  which  we  have  of  parhelia. 

Another  remark  of  some  importance  is,  that,  as 
Trinitarians  differ  much  in  their  modes  of  explain- 
ing the  doctrine,  so  are  they  not  well  agreed  in 
their  manner  of  defending  it.  When  the  doctrine 
was  first  introduced,  it  was  defended,  as  Bishop 
Horsley  tells  us,  "  by  arguments  drawn  from  Pla- 
tonic principles."*  To  say  nothing  of  these,  some 
of  the  favorite  arguments  from  Scripture  of  the 
ancient  Fathers  were  such  as  no  Trinitarian  at  the 
present  day  would  choose  to  insist  upon.  One  of 
those,  for  instance,  which  was  adduced  to  prove 
the  Trinity  is  found  in  Ecclesiastes  iv.  12,  "A 
threefold  cord  is  not  soon  broken."  Not  a  few  of 
the  Fathers,  says  Whitby,  explain  this  concerning 
the  Holy  Trinity.!  Another  passage  often  ad- 
duced, and  among  others  by  Athanasius,  as  de- 
clarative of  the  generation  of  the  Son  from  the 
substance  of  the  Father,  was  discovered  in  the 

*  Charge,  IV.  $  2,  published  in  Horsley's  Tracts  in  Controversy 
rrith  Dr.  Priestley. 

t  Dissertatio  de  S.  Scripturarum  Interpretatione  secundum  Patrum 
Commentaries,  pp.  95,  96. 


92          REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

first  verse  of  the  45th  Psalm.  The  argument 
founded  upon  this  disappears  altogether  in  our 
common  version,  which  renders  it :  "  My  heart  is 
inditing  a  good  matter."  But  the  word  in  the 
Septuagint  corresponding  to  matter  in  the  cum- 
mon  version  is  Logos;  and  the  Fathers  under- 
stood the  passage  thus :  My  heart  is  throwing 
out  a  good  Logos.*  A  proof  that  the  second 
person  in  the  Trinity  became  incarnate,  was  found 
in  Proverbs  ix.  1 :  "  Wisdom  hath  builded  her 
house";!  for  the  second  person,  or  the  Son,  was 
regarded  in  the  theology  of  the  times  as  the  Wis- 
dom of  the  Father.  These  are  merely  specimens 
taken  from  many  of  a  similar  character,  a  number 
more  of  which  may  be  found  in  the  work  of  Wrhit- 
by  just  referred  to  in  the  margin.  Since  the  first 
introduction  of  the  doctrine,  the  mode  of  its  de- 
fence has  been  continually  changing.  As  more 
just  notions  respecting  the  criticism  and  interpre- 
tation of  the  Scriptures  have  slowly  made  their 
way,  one  passage  after  another  has  been  dropped 
from  the  Trinitarian  roll.  Some  which  are  re- 
tained by  one  expositor  are  given  up  by  another. 
Even  two  centuries  ago,  Calvin  threw  away  or 
depreciated  the  value  of  many  texts,  which  most 
Trinitarians  would  think  hardly  to  be  spared.  $ 


*  Dissertatio  de  S.  Scriptararum  Interpretatione  secundum  Patrum 
Commentaries,  p.  75. 

t  Ibid.,  p.  92. 

J  [Thus,  for  example,  in  his  note  on  John  x.  30,  •"  I  and  my  Father 
are  one,"  Calvin  says  :  "  The  ancients  improperly  used  this  passage 
to  prove  that  Christ  is  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father.  Foi 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    93 

There  are  very  few  of  any  importance  in  the 
controversy,  the  Orthodox  exposition  of  which 
has  not  been  abandoned  by  some  one  or  more  of 
the  principal  Trinitarian  critics  among  Protestants.* 
Among  Catholics,  there  are  many  by  whom  it  is 
rather  affirmed  than  conceded,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  not  to  be  proved  from  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  rests  for  its  support  upon  the  tradition 
of  the  Church. 

WHENCE,  then,  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
derived?  The  answer  to  this  question  is  impor- 
tant. Reason  and  Scripture  have  borne  their  testi- 
mony against  the  doctrine ;  and  I  am  now  about 
to  call  another  witness,  Ecclesiastical  History. 

he  is  not  speaking  of  a  unity  of  substance,  but  of  his  agreement 
(consensu)  with  the  Father ;  implying  that  whatever  he  does  will  be 
confirmed  by  the  Father's  power."  —  Opp.  VI.  P.  II.  103. 

It  may  be  observed,  that  the  earlier  Christian  Fathers  who  treai 
of  this  passage  do  not  explain  it  in  the  manner  which  is  censured  by 
Calvin.  They  understood  the  word  "  one,"  which  is  in  the  neuter 
gender  in  the  original,  as  denoting,  not  a  unity  of  nature,  but  of  will 
and  affection,  a  moral  unity ;  referring  for  this  use  of  language  to 
other  passages  of  Scripture,  as  John  xvii.  11,  21  -23  ;  Acts  iv.  32  ; 
1  Cor.  iii.  8,  &c.  So  Tertullian,  Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  22  ;  Novatian, 
De  Trinitate,  c.  27;  Origen,  Cont.  Celsum,  Lib.  VIII.  c.  12,  Opp.  I. 
750,  751  ;  Coram.  in  Joannem,  Tom.  xiii.  c.  36,  Opp.  IV.  245  ;  and 
elsewhere.  See  also  the  citations  from  Hippolytus,  Alexander  of1 
Alexandria,  and  Eusebius,  in  Jackson's  notes  on  Novatian,  pp.  368, 
369.  The  passage  is  understood  in  a  similar  manner  by  Erasmus, 
Grotius,  Bp.  Pearce,  Abp.  Newcome,  Bp.  Middleton,  Knapp,  Rosen- 
muller,  Kuinoel,  Stuart,  Schleusner,  Wahl,  and  Robinson.] 

*  [For  abundant  proof  of  this  fact,  see  Wilson's  "  Concessions  c! 
Trinitarians,"  Manchester,  Eng.,  and  Boston,  U.  S.,  1845.  8voJ 


SECTION  IV. 

ON   THE   ORIGIN   OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF   THE   TRINITY. 

WE  can  trace  ike  history  of  this  doctrine,  and  dis- 
cover its  source,  not  in  the  Christian  revelation,  but 
in  the  Platonic  philosophy ;  *  which  was  the  preva- 
lent philosophy  during  the  first  ages  after  the  intro- 
duction of  Christianity,  and  of  which  all  the  more 
eminent  Christian  writers,  the  Fathers  as  they  are 
called,  were,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  disciples. 
They,  as  others  have  often  done,  blended  their 
philosophy  and  their  religion  into  one  complex 
and  heterogeneous  system ;  and  taught  the  doc- 
trines of  the  former  as  those  of  the  latter.  In  this 
manner,  they  introduced  errors  into  the  popular 
faith.  "  It  is  an  old  complaint  of  learned  men," 
says  Mosheim,  "  that  the  Fathers,  or  teachers  of 
the  ancient  church,  were  too  much  inclined  to  the 
philosophy  of  Plato,  and  rashly  confounded  what 
was  taught  by  that  philosopher  with  the  doctrines 
of  Christ,  our  Saviour;  in  consequence  of  which, 
the  religion  of  Heaven  was  greatly  corrupted,  and 

*  I  state  the  proposition  in  this  general  form,  in  which  the  author- 
ities to  be  adduced  directly  apply  to  it.  But  it  is  to  be  observed,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  personality  of  the  Logos,  and  of  his  divinity,  in  an 
inferior  sense  of  that  term,  which  was  the  germ  of  the  Trinity,  was 
immediately  derived  from  Philo,  the  Jewish  Plato  as  he  has  been 
called,  which  fact  I  shall  hereafter  have  occasion  to  advert  to. 


OR13IN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.    95 

the  truth  much  obscured."*  This  passage  is  from 
the  Dissertation  of  Mosheim,  Concerning  the  In- 
jury clone  to  the  Church  by  the  Later  Platomsts. 
In  the  same  Dissertation,  after  stating  some  of  the 
obstructions  thrown  in  the  way  of  Christianity  by 
those  of  the  later  Platonists  who  were  its  enemies, 
he  proceeds  to  say:  "But  these  evils  were  only 
external,  and  although  they  were  injurious  to  our 
most  holy  religion,  and  delayed  its  progress,  yet 
they  did  not  corrupt  its  very  nature,  and  disease, 
if  I  may  so  speak,  its  vitals.  More  fatal  distempers 
afflicted  Christianity,  after  this  philosophy  had  en- 
tered the  very  limits  of  the  sacred  city,  and  had 
built  a  habitation  for  herself  in  the  minds  of  those 
to  whom  the  business  of  instruction  was  com- 
mitted. There  is  nothing,  the  most  sacred  in  our 
faith,  which  from  that  time  was  not  profaned,  and 
did  not  lose  a  great  part  of  its  original  and  natural 
form."  f  "  Few  of  the  learned,"  he  adds  in  an- 
other place,  "are  so  unacquainted  with  ecclesi- 
astical history,  as  to  be  ignorant  what  a  great 
number  of  errors,  and  most  preposterous  opinions, 
flowed  in  from  this  impure  source."  J  Among  the 
false  doctrines  thus  introduced  from  the  Platonic 
philosophy  is  to  be  reckoned,  pre-eminently,  that 
of  the  Trinity.  Gibbon  says,  with  a  sneer,  that 
"the  Athenian  sage  [Plato]  marvellously  antici- 
pated one  of  the  most  surprising  discoveries  of  the 

*  Mosheim,  De  turbatd  per  recentiores  Platonicos  Ecclesia  Com* 
tnentatio,  $  vi. 
t  Ibid.,  §  xxxiii. 
t  Ibid.,  $  xlviiL 

13 


96    ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

Christian  revelation."  *  In  making  this  assertion, 
Gibbon  adopted  a  popular  error,  for  which  there  is 
no  foundation.  Nothing  resembling  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  to  be  found  in  the  writings  ol 
Plato  himself. f  But  there  is  no  question  that,  in 
different  forms,  it  was  a  favorite  doctrine  of  the 
later  Platonists,  equally  of  those  who  were  not 
Christians  as  of  those  who  were.  Both  the  one 
and  the  other  class  expressed  the  doctrine  in  simi- 
lar terms,  explained  it  in  a  similar  manner,  and 
defended  it,  as  far  as  the  nature  of  the  case  al- 
lowed, by  similar  arguments  ;  and  both  appealed 
in  its  support  to  the  authority  of  Plato.  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  one  of  the  earliest  of  the  Trinitarian 
and  Platonizing  Fathers,  (he  flourished  about  the 
commencement  of  the  third  century,)  endeavors  to 
show,  that  the  doctrine  was  taught  by  that  philoso- 
pher. He  quotes  a  passage  from  one  of  the  epis- 
tles ascribed  to  him,J  in  which  mention  is  made  of 
a  second  and  third  principle,  beside  the  "  King  of 
all  things."  In  this  passage,  he  observes,  he  "  can 

*  [Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  Ch.  xxi.] 
t  Mosheim  says,  ironically :  "  Certainly  the  three  famous  hypos- 
tases  of  the  later  Platonists  may  be  discovered  in  the  Timaeus  of 
Plato,  as  easily  and  readily  as  the  three  principles  of  the  chemists, 
•alt,  sulphur,  and  mercury."  "  Certe  tres  illas  celeberrimas  hyposta- 
•es  Platonicorum  in  Timaeo  Platonis  ostendere,  aeque  facile  et  promp- 
tum  est,  atque  tria  chymicorum  principia,  sal,  sulphur,  et  mercurium 
ex  hoc  Dialogo  eruere."  (See  his  Notes  to  his  Latin  Translation  of 
Cudworth's  Intellectual  System,  2d  ed.,  Tom.  I.  p.  901.)  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is  as  little  to  be  discovered  in  any  other  genuine 
writing  of  Plato  as  in  the  Timaeus. 

t  The  second  epistle  to  Dionysius  ;  which,  with  all  the  other  epis- 
tles ascribed  to  Plato,  is  now  generally  regarded  as  spurious. 


OiUGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.    97 

understand  nothing  to  be  meant  but  the  Sacred 
Trinity;  the  third  principle  being  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  the  second  principle  being  the  Son,  by  whom 
all  things  were  created  according  to  the  will  of  the 
Father."*  A  similar  interpretation  of  the  passage 
is  referred  to  by  Eusebius ;  f  and  in  the  oration 
which  he  ascribes  to  Constantine,  as  addressed 
"  To  the  Assembly  of  Saints,"  Plato  is  eulogized 
as  teaching,  conformably  to  the  truth,  that  "  there 
is  a  First  God,  the  Father,  and  a  Second  God,  the 
Logos  or  Son."J  Augustine  tells  us  in  his  Con- 
fessions, that  he  found  the  true  doctrine  concern- 
ing the  Logos  in  a  Latin  translation  of  some  Pla- 
tonic writings,  which  the  providence  of  God  had 
thrown  in  his  way.§  Speaking  of  those  ancient 
philosophers  who  were  particularly  admired  by  the 
later  Platonists,  he  says :  "  If  these  men  could  re- 
vive, and  live  over  again  their  lives  with  us,  with 
the  change  of  a  few  words  and  sentences  they 
would  become  Christians,  as  very  many  Plato- 
nists of  our  own  time  have  done."  ||  Theodoret 
gives  the  following  account  of  the  Platonic  Trin- 
ity as  compared  with  the  Christian:  "  Plotinus 
and  Numenius,  explaining  the  opinion  of  Plato, 
represent  him  as  teaching  the  existence  of  three 
principles  which  are  beyond  time  and  eternal,  The 

*  Stromat.    Lib.  V.  c.  14.  p.  710,  ed.  Potter. 

t  Praparatio  Evangelica,  Lib.  XI.  c.  20. 

t  Cap.  9. 

4  "  Tu,  Domine procurasti  mihi quosdam  Plato- 

nicorum  libros,"  &c.  [Confess.  Lib.  VII.  cc.  8,  9.]  Opp.  I.  col.  12& 
Basil.  1556. 

0  Lib.  de  Vera  Religione.     [Cap  4,  al.  7.]     Opp.  L  col.  704, 


d       ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY 

Good,  Intellect,  and  the  Soul  of  the  World.  He 
gives  the  name  of  The  Good  to  the  being  whom 
we  call  Father ;  of  Intellect,  to  him  whom  we 
name  Son  and  Logos  ;  and  the  power  which  ani- 
mates and  gives  life  to  all  things,  which  the  Di- 
vine Word  names  Holy  Spirit,  he  calls  Soul.  But 
these  doctrines,  as  1  have  said,  have  been  stolen 
rrom  the  philosophy  and  theology  of  the  He- 
brews." *  Basnage  had  good  reason  for  observ- 
ing, that  the  Fathers  almost  made  Plato  to  have 
been  a  Christian,  before  the  introduction  of  Chris- 
tianity. Immediately  after  this  remark,  Basnage 
quotes  a  writer  of  the  fifth  century,  who  expresses 
with  honest  zeal  his  admiration  at  the  supposed 
fact,  that  the  Athenian  sage  should  have  so  mar- 
vellously anticipated  the  most  mysterious  doctrines 
of  revelation.f 

I  will  produce  a  few  passages  from  modern 
Trinitarian  writers,  to  show  the  near  resem- 
blance between  the  Christian  and  Platonic  Trin- 
ity. The  very  learned  Cudworth,  in  his  great 
work  on  the  Intellectual  System,  has  brought 
together  all  that  antiquity  could  furnish  to  illus- 
trate the  doctrine.  He  institutes  a  long  and  mi- 
nute comparison  between  the  forms  in  which  it  was 
held  by  the  Heathen  Platonists,  and  that  in  which  it 
was  held  by  the  Christian  Fathers.  Toward  the  con- 
clusion of  this,  we  find  the  following  passages  :  — 

"  Thus  have  we  given  a  true  and  full  account^ 
how,  according  to  Athanasius,  the  three  divine 

*  Graec.  Affect.  Curat.     Serm.  II.    Opp.  IV.  500,  ed.  Sirmond. 
t  Basnage,  Histoire  des  Juifs,  Liv.  IV.  ch.  4.  §  20. 


ORIGIN    OV    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.     99 

hyposlases,  though  not  monoousious,  but  homoou- 
sious  only,  are  really  but  one  God  or  Divinity. 
In  all  which  doctrine  of  his,  there  is  nothing  but 
what  a  true  and  genuine  Platonist  would  readily 
subscribe  to."  ' 

"  As  the  Platonic  Pagans  after  Christianity  did 
approve  of  the  Christian  doctrine  concerning  the 
Logos,  as  that  which  was  exactly  agreeable  with 
their  own ;  so  did  the  generality  of  the  Christian 
Fathers,  before  and  after  the  Nicene  Council,  rep 
resent  the  genuine  Platonic  Trinity  as  really  the 
same  thing  with  the  Christian,  or  as  approaching 
so  near  to  it,  that  they  differed  chiefly  in  circum- 
stances, or  the  manner  of  expression."  f 

In  proof  of  this,  Cudworth  produces  many  pas- 
sages similar  to  those  which  I  have  quoted  from 
the  Fathers.  Athanasius,  he  observes,  "  sends  the 
Arians  to  school  to  the  Platonists."  J 

Basnage  was  not  disposed  to  allow  such  a  re- 
semblance between  the  Christian  and  Platonic 
Trinity  as  that  which  Cudworth  maintains,  and 
has  written  expressly  in  refutation  of  the  latter. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  enter  into  this  controversy. 
The  sentence  with  which  he  concludes  his  re- 

*  Ch.  IV.  $  36.  p.  C20.  [Vol.  II.  p.  15,  Andovcr  edit  ] 

t  Page  C21.   [al.  II.  17.] 

|  IV.jrc  C23.  [al.  II.  19,  20.]  The  study  of  Cudworth  is  strongly 
recommended  by  Bishop  Ilorslcy  for  the  information  which  his  work 
contains  respecting  the  tenets  of  the  Platonists.  See  his  Charge, 
before  quoted,  V.  $  5.  I  would  recommend  it  also,  with  particular 
reference  to  the  subject  before  us  ;  for  I  kno-.v  no  other  work  from 
xvhich  so  much  information  can  be  derived  concerning  the  origin  o/ 
the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
13  • 


100    ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

marks  on  the  subject,  is  enough  for  our  purpose 
*'  Christian ity,  in  its  triumph,  has  often  reflected 
honor  on  the  Platonists;  and  as  the  Christians 
took  some  pride  in  finding  the  Trinity  taught 
by  a  philosopher,  so  the  Platonists  were  proud  in 
their  turn  to  see  the  Christians  adopt  their  prin- 
ciples."* 

I  quote  the  authorities  of  learned  Trinitarians, 
rather  than  adduce  the  facts  on  which  they  are 
founded,  because  the  facts  could  not  be  satisfac- 
torily stated  and  explained  in  a  small  compass. 
It  is  to  be  observed,  that  Trinitarians,  in  admit- 
ting the  influence  of  the  Platonic  doctrine  upon  the 
faith  of  the  early  Christians,  of  course  do  not  re- 
gard the  Platonic  as  the  original  source  of  the 
Orthodox  doctrine,  but  many  of  them  represent 
it  as  having  occasioned  errors  and  heresies,  and 
particularly  the  Arian  heresy.  Such  was  the  opin- 
ion of  Petavius,  who  in  his  Theologica  Dogmata,! 
after  giving  an  account  of  the  Platonic  notions 
concerning  the  Trinity,  thus  remarks. 

"  I  will  now  proceed  to  consider  the  subject  on 
account  of  which  I  have  entered  into  so  full  an 
investigation  of  the  opinions  of  the  Platoniste 
concerning  the  Trinity;  namely,  in  what  manner 
this  doctrine  was  conceived  of  by  some  of  the 
ancients,  and  how  the  fiction  of  Plato  concerning 
the  Trinity  was  gradually  introduced  into  Chris- 
tianity by  those  of  the  Platonists  who  had  become 
converts  to  our  religion,  or  by  others  who  had  been 

«  Histtire  des  Juifs,  Liv.  IV.  ch.  3, 4. 
t  De  Tniiitate.,  Lib.  I.  c.  3.  §  1. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.     101 

in  any  way  indoctrinated  in  the  Platonic  philoso- 
phy. They  are  to  be  separated  into  two  classes. 
One  consists  of  such  as,  properly  speaking,  were 
unworthy  the  name  of  Christians,  being  heretics. 
The  other,  of  those  who  were  true  Christians,  Cath- 
olics, and  saints ;  but  who,  through  the  circum- 
stances of  their  age,  the  mystery  not  yet  being 
properly  understood,  threw  out  dangerous  propo- 
sitions concerning  it." 

The  very  Orthodox  Gale,  in  his  Court  of  the 
Gentiles,  says :  "  The  learned  Christians,  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  Origen,  &c.,  made  use  of  the  Py- 
thagorean and  Platonic  philosophy,  which  was  at 
this  time  wholly  in  request,  as  a  medium  to  illus- 
trate and  prove  the  great  mysteries  of  faith,  touch- 
ing the  Divine  Xo'yos,  word,  mentioned  John  i.  1, 
hoping  by  such  symbolisings,  and  claiming  kindred 
with  these  philosophic  notions  and  traditions  (origi- 
nally Jewish)  touching  the  Platonic  Xoyo?,  vovs,  and 
•jyuas,  [the  Platonic  trinity,]  they  might  gain  very 
much  credit  and  interest  amongst  these  Platonic 
Sophistes"  * 

Beausobre,  in  his  History  of  Manichaeism,  ad- 
verts to  this  subject.  His  opinion  concerning  the 
resemblance  of  the  Platonic  and  Christian  Trinity 
appears  in  the  following  passage. 

"  Such,  according  to  Chalcidius,f  was  the  Pla- 
tonic Trinity.  It  has  been  justly  regarded  as  de- 
fective. 1.  It  speaks  of  a  first,  a  second,  and  a 

•  Part  III.  B.  II.  c.  l.§9. 

t  Chalcidius  was  a  Platonic  philosopher,  who  lived  before  the  cloM 
nt  the  fourth  century. 


102     ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

third  God;  expressions  which  Christianity  has 
banished.  Still,  as  appears  from  what  I  have 
said,  Plato  really  acknowledged  but  a  single  God, 
because  he  admitted,  properly  speaking,  but  a  sin- 
gle First  Cause,  and  a  single  Monarch.  2.  This 
theology  is  still  further  censured  for  the  division 
of  the  Divine  Persons,  who  are  not  only  distin- 
guished, but  separated.  The  objection  is  well 
grounded.  But  this  error  may  be  pardoned  in  a 
philosopher;  since  it  is  excused  in  a  great  number 
of  Christian  writers,  who  have  had  the  lights  of 
the  Gospel.  3.  In  the  last  place,  fault  is  found 
with  this  theology  on  account  of  the  inequality  of 
the  Persons.  There  is  a  supreme  God,  to  whom 
the  two  others  are  subject.  There  was  the  same 
defect  in  the  theology  of  the  Manichaeans.  They 
believed  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Persons,  but 
they  did  not  believe  their  equality.  The  Son  was 
below  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  below  the 
Father  and  Son.  But  if  we  go  back  to  the  time 
when  Manichaeus  lived  [about  the  middle  of  the 
third  century],  we  shall  be  obliged  to  pardon  an 

error   which    was   then   very   general Huet, 

who  acknowledges  that  Origen  has  everywhere 
taught  that  the  Son  is  inferior  to  the  Father,  ex- 
cuses him  on  the  ground  that  this  was  the  com- 
mon doctrine  of  those  writers  who  preceded  the 
Council  of  Nice.  And  Petavius  not  only  does  not 
deny  it,  but  proves  it  at  length  in  his  First  Book 
on  the  Trinity."* 

*  Histoirc  du  Manich6isme,  Tom.  I  pp  560,  56; 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.     103 

There  has  been  no  more  noted  defender  of  the 
doctrine  in  modern  times  than  Bishop  Horsley. 
The  following  is  a  quotation  from  his  Letters  to 
Dr.  Priestley. 

"  I  am  very  sensible  that  the  Platonizers  of  the 
second  century  were  the  Orthodox  of  that  age.  1 
have  not  denied  this.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  en- 
deavored to  show  that  their  Platonism  brings  no 
imputation  upon  their  Orthodoxy.  The  advocates 
of  the  Catholic  faith  in  modern  times  have  been 
too  apt  to  take  alarm  at  the  charge  of  Platonism. 
I  rejoice  and  glory  in  the  opprobrium.  I  not  only 
confess,  but  I  maintain,  not  a  perfect  agreement, 
but  such  a  similitude  as  speaks  a  common  origin, 
and  affords  an  argument  in  confirmation  of  the 
Catholic  doctrine  [of  the  Trinity],  from  its  con- 
formity to  the  most  ancient  and  universal  tradi- 
tions." * 

In  another  place  he  says :  "  It  must  be  acknowl- 
edged, that  the  first  converts  from  the  Platonic 
school  took  advantage  of  the  resemblance  between 
the  Evangelic  and  Platonic  doctrine  on  the  subject 
of  the  Godhead,  to  apply  the  principles  of  their 
old  philosophy  to  the  explication  and  confirmation 
of  the  articles  of  their  faith.  They  defended  it  by 
arguments  drawn  from  Platonic  principles ;  they 
even  propounded  it  in  Platonic  language."  f 

The  celebrated  Bentley,  upon  taking  his  degree 
of  Doctor  of  Divinity  in  1696  at  Cambridge,  de- 
fended "  the  identity  of  the  Christian  and  Platonic 

•  Letters  to  Dr.  Priestley,  Letter  13.  t  Charge,  IV.  f  2. 


104     ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

Trinity,"  together  with  "  the  Mosaic  account  of 
the  Creation  and  the  Deluge,"  and  "  the  proof 
of  divine  authority  by  the  miracles  recorded  in 
Scripture."  Nor  does  it  appear  that  the  first-men- 
tioned position  was  regarded  with  surprise  or  oblo- 
quy, any  more  than  the  last  two.* 

I  might  produce  more  authorities  in  support  oi 
the  facts  which  have  been  stated.  But  I  conceive 
it  to  be  unnecessary.  The  fair  inference  from 
these  facts  every  reader  is  able  to  draw  for  him- 
self. The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  a  doctrine 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  but  a  fiction  of  the 
school  of  the  later  Platonists,  introduced  into  our 
religion  by  the  Fathers,  who  were  admirers  and 
disciples  of  the  philosophy  taught  in  this  school. 
The  want  of  all  mention  of  it  in  the  Scriptures  is 
abundantly  compensated  by  the  ample  space  which 
it  occupies  in  the  writings  of  the  heathen  Plato- 
nists, and  of  the  Platonizing  Fathers. 

But  what  has  been  stated  is  not  the  only  evi- 
dence which  Ecclesiastical  History  affords  against 
this  doctrine.  The  conclusion  to  which  we  "have 
just  arrived  is  confirmed  by  other  facts.  But  these, 
nowever  important,  I  will  here  but  barely  mention. 
They  are  the  facts  of  its  gradual  introduction;  of 
,ts  slow  growth  to  its  present  form ;  of  the  strong 
opposition  which  it  encountered;  and  of  its  tardy 
reception  among  the  great  body  of  common  Chris- 
tians.^ 

*  See  Monk's  Life  of  Bentley,  p.  57. 

t  On  these  subjects,  see  Dr.  Priestley's  History  of  Early  Opinions 
concerning  Jesus  Christ,     f Compare  Mr.  Norton's  "Account  of  the 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.      105 

CUDWORTH,  after  remarking  "  that  not  a  few  of 
those  ancient  Fathers,  who  were  therefore  reputed 
Orthodox  because  they  zealously  opposed  Arian- 
ism,"  namely,  Gregory  Nyssen,  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria, and  others,  entertained  the  opinion  that  the 
three  persons  in  the  Trinity  were  three  distinct 
individuals,  u  like  three  individual  rnen,  Thomas, 
Peter,  and  John,"  —  the  divine  nature  being  com- 
mon  to  the  former  as  the  human  nature  is  to  the 
latter, —  observes  that  "  some  would  think  that  the 
ancient  and  genuine  Platonic  Trinity,  taken  with 
all  its  faults,  is  to  be  preferred  before  this  Trinity." 
He  then  says :  "  But  as  this  Trinity  came  after- 
wards to  be  decried  for  tritheistic,  so  in  the  room 
thereof  started  there  up  that  other  Trinity  of  per- 
sons numerically  the  same,  or  having  all  one  and 
the  same  singular  existent  essence,  —  a  doctrine 
which  seemeth  not  to  have  been  owned  by  any 
public  authority  in  the  Christian  Church,  save  that 
of  the  Lateran  Council  only." * 

This  is  the  present  Orthodox  form  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity.  Cudworth  refers  to  the 
fourth  general  Lateran  Council,  held  in  1215, 
under  Pope  Innocent  the  Third.  The  same  Coun- 
cil which,  in  the  depth  of  the  Dark  Ages,  es- 
tablished the  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
established,  likewise,  that  of  Transubstantiation ; 

Controversy  between  Dr.  Priestley,  Dr.  Horsley,  and  others,"  in  the 
General  Repository  and  Review  (Cambridge,  1812,  1813),  Vols. 
I. -III.] 

*  Intellectual  System,  Ch.  IV.  $36.  pp    602-604.     [I.  791-79S, 
Amdover  edit! 


106     ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

enforced  with  the  utmost  rigor  the  persecution  of 
heretics,  whom  it  ordered  to  be  sought  out  and 
exterminated  ;  and  prepared  the  way  for  the  tri- 
bunal s  of  the  Inquisition,  which  were  shortly  after 
established.* 

*  See  Fleuiy,  Histoire  Ecclesiastique,  An.  121* 


SECTION  V. 

CONCERNING   THE   HISTORY  OF   TJIE  DOCTBIXE  OF   THE 
UYrOSTATIC     UXIOX. 

IT  may  throw  some  further  light  upon  the  hu- 
man origin  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  briefly  to 
notice  the  history  of  that  of  the  Hypostatic  Union. 

By  Trinitarians  it  is  represented  as  a  doctrine  of 
fundamental  importance,  that  Christ  was  at  once 
God  and  man,  the  two  natures  being  so  united  as 
to  constitute  but  one  person.  It  is  this,  indeed, 
which  is  supposed  to  give  its  chief  interest  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  since  only  he  who  was  at 
once  God  and  man  could,  it  is  said,  have  made  for 
men  that  infinite  atonement  which  the  justice  of 
God,  or  rather  the  justice  of  the  Father,  required. 
But  in  the  minds  of  most  of  those  who  profess  the 
doctrine,  it  exists,  I  conceive,  merely  as  a  form  of 
words,  not  significant  of  any  conceptions,  however 
dim  or  incongruous.  They  have  not  even  formed 
an  imagination,  possible  or  impossible,  of  what  is 
meant  by  the  Hypostatic  Union.  It  is  a  remark- 
able fact,  that  while  new  attempts  to  explain  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  new  hypotheses  and  illus- 
trations of  it,  have  been  abundant,  this  other  doc- 
trine has,  in  modern  times,  been  generally  left  in  the 

nakedness  of  its  verbal  statement;  that  "  the  God- 
u 


108  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

head  and  manhood  being  joined  together  in  one 
person  never  to  be  divided,  there  is  one  Christ, 
very  God  and  very  man,  who  truly  suffered,  was 
crucified,  dead,  and  buried." 

IT  was  in  the  tifth  century  that  the  doctrine 
assumed  its  present  form.  The  Fathers  of  the 
second  century  believed  in  the  incarnation  of  the 
Logos,  or  the  Son  of  God ;  they  believed  that  he 
became  a  man,  that  is,  they  believed  that  he  mani- 
fested himself  in  a  human  body  ;  but  their  concep- 
tions concerning  the  particular  nature  of  the  rela- 
tion between  the  divinity  and  humanity  of  Christ 
were  obscure  and  unsettled.  Their  general  no 
tions  respecting  the  Incarnation  may  more  easily 
be  ascertained,  though  they  have  not  till  of  late 
been  made  the  subject  of  much  critical  inquiry. 

IN  Justin  Martyr  there  is,  I  think,  but  one  pas- 
sage concerning  the  mode  and  results  of  the  con- 
nection between  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  which 
has  been  regarded  as  of  much  importance ;  and 
that  has  been  differently  explained,  and,  as  the  text 
now  stands,  is,  I  believe,  unintelligible.*  What, 

*  Justin  (Apologia  Sec.  p.  123,  ed.  Thirlb.)  [c.  10,  p.  48,  C.  ed. 
Morel.]  is  speaking  of  the  superiority  of  Christ  to  all  other  lawgivers. 
These,  he  admits,  possessed  a  portion  of  the  Logos,  that  is,  were  en- 
lightened, in  a  certain  degree,  by  the  Wisdom  of  God ;  but  Christ  was 
the  Logos  himself;  therefore  the  doctrines  he  taught  and  Christians 
believed  (TO.  ^/Lte'repa)  were  far  higher  than  all  which  had  been  taught 
before.  The  passage  in  question,  by  the  insertion  of  a  comma  and  a 
letter,  may  receive  a  certain  meaning,  but  one  which  throws  Vttle 
light  on  the  subject.  —  Meydkciorcpa  ....  fauverat  TO  jj/tcVepa  J*ii 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  109 

however,  is  more  important,  it  appears  from  the 
general  tenor  of  his  .language  on  this  subject, 
that  Justin  regarded  the  Logos  alone  as,  properly 
speaking,  Christ  himself.  His  notions  of  the  in- 
carnation of  the  Logos  were  essentially  those  which 
we  usually  connect  with  that  word  as  denoting 
the  assumption  of  a  body  by  a  spiritual  being, 
and  not  as  implying  any  union  or  combination 
of  a  superior  nature  with  the  human.  Though 
he  uses  the  term  "  man  "  in  reference  to  the  ani- 
mate body  of  Christ,  yet  the  real  agent  and  sufferer 
whom  he  seems  always  to  have  had  in  view  is  the 
Logos;  for  the  conceptions  of  Justin  concerning 
the  Logos  were  not  such  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of 
his  suffering.  Speaking  of  the  agony  of  Christ  in 
the  garden  of  Gethsemane,  he  says  it  was  recorded, 
"  that  we  might  know  that  it  was  the  will  of  the 
Father  that  his  Son  should  truly  thus  suffer  for  our 
sakes ;  and  that  we  might  not  say  that  he  being 
the  Son  of  God  had  no  feeling  of  what  was  done 
to  him  or  what  befell  him."  *  In  later  times,  in- 
deed, language  was  used,  and  its  use  has  continued 
to  our  own  day,  —  language  not  utterly  intolerable 
only  because  it  is  utterly  without  meaning,  —  in 

TOVTO  [,]  \oyiKov  TO  [f.  rdi/]  o\ov  rbv  (f>av(vra  6Y  f)p.as  Xpiordi/  yf- 
yopmu,  KOI  (rco/ia,  KOI  Xdyoi>,  *at  "^\J\r\v.  "  It  appears  that  our  doc- 
trines are  far  superior,  for  this  reason,  that  the  whole  Christ  who 
appeared  for  us,  body,  Logos,  and  animal  soul,  pertained  to  the 
Logos  (\oyiK&v  ycyovfvai). 

Perhaps  the  use  of  such  language  may  he  illustrated  ty  a  passage 
of  Origen  (Cont.  Cels.  Lib.  III.  f  41,  Opp.  I.  474),  which  will  bo 
quoted  hereafter.  See  also  Lib.  II.  §  51.  Opp.  I.  426. 

*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  pp.  361,  362.  [al.  c.  103,  p.  331,  D.] 


110  HISTORY    OF    THF,    DOCTRINE 

which  God  is  spoken  of  as  having  suffered  and 
been  crucified.  Bat  Justin,  and  other  early  Fa- 
thers, when  they  spoke  of  the  sufferings  of  the 
Logos,  meant  what  they  said.  This  is  evident, 
not  merely  from  passages  as  explicit  as  that  just 
quoted,  but  from  the  manner  in  which  they  re- 
garded the  doctrine  of  those  who  denied  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Logos,  and  maintained  that  the 
divinity  in  Christ  was  the  divinity  of  the  Father. 
Such  opinions,  it  was  affirmed,  necessarily  led  to 
the  belief  that  the  Father  himself  had  suffered. 
Those  who  held  them  were  charged  with  this  be- 
lief, and  hence  denominated  Patripassians.  The 
charge,  without  doubt,  was  unjust;  but  it  shows 
that  the  doctrine  of  those  who  made  it  was,  that 
the  Logos,  the  divine  nature  of  the  Son,  had  suf- 
fered in  Christ.  If  they  had  not  held  this  belief 
concerning  the  Logos,  or  Son,  there  would  have 
been  no  pretence  for  charging  their  opponents  with 
holding  a  corresponding  belief  concerning  the  Fa- 
ther ;  especially  as  their  opponents  maintained, 
what  they  themselves  did  not  maintain,  that  Christ 
was  properly  and  in  all  respects  a  man  ;  and  this 
being  so,  had  no  occasion  to  turn  their  thoughts  to 

any  other  sufferer  than  the  man  Christ. 

• 

THE  opinions  of  Irenaeus  were  similar  to  those 
of  Justin.  He  regarded  the  Logos  as  supplying  in 
Christ  the  place  of  the  intelligent  soul  or  mind  of 
man.  I  use  these  expressions,  because  Irenaeus,  in 
common  with  other  ancient  philosophers,  distin- 
guished between  the  rnind,  intellect,  or  spirit,  and 


OP    THE    IIYPOSTATIC    UNION.  11^ 

the  principle  of  life,  or  animal  soul,  which  was 
also  considered  as  the  seat  of  the  passions.  The 
vagueness  with  which  the  names  were  used,  de- 
noting these  two  principles  in  man,  is  one  cause  of 
obscurity  in  the  present  inquiry.  But  Irenseus,  it 
appears,  conceived  that  the  Logos  in  becoming 
incarnate  assumed  only  a  body  and  an  animal 
soul,  the  place  of  the  human  intellect  being  sup- 
plied by  the  Logos  himself.*  In  holding  this 
doctrine,  he,  though  the  champion  of  the  church 
against  the  heretics  of  his  own  day,  was  himself 
a  precursor  both  of  the  Arian  and  the  Apollinarian 


*  See  the  passages  quoted  by  Mdnschcr,  in  his  Handbuch  der 
christlichen  Dogmengeschichte.  Band  II.  $  181.  MUnschcr,  how- 
ever, is  incorrect  in  representing  Ircnjcus  as  having  supposed  the 
Logos  to  have  assumed  a  human  BODY  onlv.  According  to  Ircnseus, 
an  animal  soul  (anima,  ^^X1?)  was  n\so  conjoined  with  the  Logos.  la 
opposition  to  the  Gnostics,  who  denied  that  Christ  had  a  proper  hu- 
man body,  he  says  (Lib.  III.  c.  22.  $  2) :  "  If  the  Son  of  God  had 

received  nothing  from  Mary, lie  would  not  have  said,  My  soul 

(f)  x/'ux1?  /^oi;)  is  exceedingly  sorrowful."  Dr.  Priestley,  on  the  other 
hand,  contends  (Hist,  of  Early  Opinions,  Vol.  II.  p.  203,  seqq.)  that, 
according  to  Ircnseus,  Christ  had  a  proper  human  soul.  His  error 
arises  from  his  not  adverting  to  the  distinction  above  mentioned,  be- 
tween the  intellect  or  spirit  and  the  animal  soul.  This  distinction 
is  stated  and  illustrated  by  Ircnacus,  Lib  V.  c.  6.  §  1.  The  latter 
passage  is  to  be  compared  with  that  quoted  by  Dr.  Priestley,  of 
which  his  rendering  is  erroneous. 

It  may  be  observed  that  the  mistake  of  Mflnschcr  is  followed  by 
Ncandcr  (Gcschichte  dcr  christ.  Kelig.  n.  Kirchc,  Band  I.  s.  10G3), 
who  says,  speaking  of  the  early  opinions  concerning  Christ :  "Tho 
assumption  of  the  human  nature  was  conceived  of  merely  as  ihc  as- 
sumption of  a  human  body,  as  we  find  it  clearly  expressed  by  Ire- 
nocus."  [This  statement  of  Neandcr's  was  modified  in  the  second 
edition  of  this  part  of  his  work,  published  in  1843.  Sec  TorrcyV 
Translation,  I.  634.] 

H* 


112  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

heresies  concerning  the  Incarnation  ;  for  the  error 
of  both  consisted  in  regarding  the  Logos  as  hav- 
ing supplied  the  place  of  the  human  intellect  in 
Christ. 

In  opposition  to  those  Gnostics  who  maintained 
that  the  ^Eon,  as  they  denominated  him,  or  the 
divine  being,  Christ,  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion, 
departed  from  the  man,  Jesus,  and  left  him  to  suf- 
fer alone,  Irenaeus  often  speaks  of  the  proper  suffer- 
ings of  the  Logos.* 

Of  the  opinions  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  con- 
cerning the  mode  of  connection  between  the  two 
natures,  nothing,  I  think,  can  be  affirmed  definitely 
and  with  assurance.-)-  Of  the  passages  adduced 


*  See  many  passages  to  this  effect  collected  by  Jackson  in  his  An- 
notations to  Novatian,  pp.  357,  358.  On  this  subject,  and  on  the 
opinions  of  the  earlier  Fathers  generally  respecting  the  Incarnation, 
see  also  Whiston's  Primitive  Christianity,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  272-321. 

Dr.  Priestley  (History  of  Early  Opinions,  Vol.  II.  pp.  205,  215, 
216)  produces  a  single  passage  from  Irena?us  (Lib.  III.  c  19.  §  3),  on 
which  he  relies  for  proof  that  Irenaeus  did  not  conceive  of  the  Logos 
as  suffering.  The  Greek  of  this  passage  is  quoted  by  Dr.  Priestley. 
It  is  preserved  by  Theodoret,  who  may  probably  have  somewhat  al- 
tered the  expressions  to  conform  them  to  his  own  opinions,  as  they 
do  not  agree  with  those  of  the  old  Latin  version,  which  is  here  the 
better  authority.  Nor  does  Dr.  Priestley's  translation  correspond 
even  with  the  Greek.  He  renders  :  "  The  Logos  being  quiescent  in 
his  temptation,  crucifixion,  and  death "' ;  thus  separating  the  Logos 
from  Christ,  and  representing  Christ  as  a  distinct  person  by  the  use 
of  the  personal  pronoun,  his.  The  Greek  K  r}<rux(t&vTos  p,ev  rov 
Aoyov  ev  r<5  TTfipd^eadai  KOI  oraupoOcr&u  KOI  air()6vt](TK.fiv ;  which 
should  be  rendered :  "  The  Logos  being  quiescent  (i  e.  suspending 
his  powers)  when  tempted,  when  crucified,  and  at  death  " 

t  See  the  quotations  from  and  references  to  him  in  MUnsche/ 
Rid.,  i  183. 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  113 

from  him,  one  of  the  principal  has  I  think,  no  re- 
lation to  the  subject ;  but  refers  throughout  to  the 
indwelling  of  the  Logos  in  all  true  believers.  It 
is,  however,  so  remarkable,  as  showing  how  loosely 
language  was  used,  on  which,  in  the  writings  of 
the  earlier  Fathers,  too  much  stress  has  often  been 
laid,  that  it  deserves  quotation.  "  That  man,"  he 
says,  "  with  whom  the  Logos  abides,  does  not  as- 
sume various  appearances,  but  preserves  the  form 
of  the  Logos  ;  he  is  made  like  to  God  ;  he  is  beau- 
tiful, not  adorned  with  factitious  beauty,  but  being 
essential  beauty ;  for  such  God  is.  That  man  be- 
comes a  god,  because  God  so  wills  it.  It  has  been 
well  said  by  Heraclitus,  *  Men  are  gods  and  the 
gods  are  men  ' ;  for  the  Logos  himself,  a  conspicu- 
ous mystery,  is  God  in  man,  and  man  becomes  a 
god ;  the  Mediator  accomplishing  the  will  of  the 
Father ;  for  the  Mediator  is  the  Logos  common 
to  both ;  being  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour 
of  men,  being  his  minister  and  our  instructor."  * 

*  The  following  is  the  original  „  f  the  passage.  See  Potter's  edi- 
tion of  Clement,  p.  251.  I  have  altered  his  pointing,  as  the  sense 
seems  to  me  to  require,  and  in  one  instance,  in  the  last  sentence, 
6cos  is  printed  with  a  small  initial  letter  where  he  has  used  a  capital. 

'O    6*6    avdpCOTTOS    CKfivOS,  <B   (TVVOIKOS  6  AdyOff,  OU    TTOlKlXXeTCU,  OU 

TrXarrercu  •  popfprjv  e%f i  TTJV  TOV  Adyou  •  e'£o/ioio{5rai  r<5  6ea>  •  KaAos 
ou  KaXXco7Ti£eTai  •  /caXXdff  eVn  TO  a\r)0iv6v,  KOI  yap  6  Geoff 
Geoff  8e  cKflvos  o  avBpairos  yivrrai,  on  /3ouXercu  o  Geoff. 
apa  drrfv  'HpaKXeiro?,  *Az/0pa>7roi,  6foi  •  6toi,  avdpurroi. 
Aoyoff  yap  duroy,  p.v(TTr)piov  fp.(pavfs,  Geoff  tv  av6pu)irto,  /cat  6 
ai/^pcoTroy,  ^eoff  •  *at  TO  6e\r)fjM  TOV  Ilarpos  6  ^fa-irrjs  eWeXet  • 
p.€criTTjs  yap  6  Adyoff,  6  KOIVOS  ap.(poivj  GeoO  p.ev  vtdy, 
dvOptoTTwv,  KOI  TOV  p.*v  &UIKOVOS,  f)p.(i)v  8f  TraiSaycoyoy. 
Lib.  III.  c.  1. 


114  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

Archbishop  Potter,  in  the  notes  to  his  edition  of 
Clement,  observes,  "  that  Clement  often  says,  that 
men  through  piety  and  virtue  are  not  only  assimi- 
lated to  God,  but  as  it  were  transformed  into  the 
divine  nature,  and  become  gods."* 

But  the  opinions  of  Clement  respecting  the  In- 
carnation appear  perhaps  with  sufficient  distinct- 
ness in  what  he  says  of  the  body  of  Christ.  Ac- 
cording to  him,  "  It  would  be  ridiculous  to  sup- 
pose that  the  body  of  our  Saviour  required  the 
aliments  necessary  to  others  for  his  support.  He 
took  food  not  for  the  sake  of  his  body,  which  \vas 
sustained  by  a  holy  power,  but  that  he  might  not 
give  occasion  to  those  with  whom  he  was  conver- 
sant to  form  a  wrong  opinion  concerning  him;  — 
as,  in  fact,  some  [the  Docetae]  afterward  supposed, 
that  he  had  been  manifested  with  only  the  appear- 
ance of  a  body.  But  he  was  wholly  impassible; 
liable  to  be  affected  by  no  motions  either  of  pleas- 
are  or  pain."  f  It  would  seem  that  Clement  here 
excludes  all  conception  even  of  an  animal  soul  in 
Christ;  and  that  he  regarded  the  appearance  of  the 
Logos  on  earth  as  merely  the  manifestation  of  him 
to  the  senses  of  men  in  a  body,  answering  in  form 
and  substance  to  a  human  body,  but  not  subject 
to  the  same  necessities  and  accidents. 


*  Sec  note  11,  p.  71,  and  note  7,  p.  88.    In  the  latter  he  produces 
rcmarkahlc  examples  of  this  use  of  language.     Sec  also   numerous 
examples  from  other  early  Christian  writers,  in  Sandii  Interprcta 
tiones  Paradox^,  p.  227,  scqq   [and  Winston's  Primitive  Christian 
Hy,  Vol.  IV.  p.  100,  seqq  ] 

*  Stromat.  VI.  §  9.  p.  775. 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  115 

THE  language  of  Tertullinn  is  vacillating  and 
self-contradictory.  His  conceptions  on  the  whole 
subject  of  the  Logos  were  unsteady  ;  and  no  form 
of  words  had  as  yet  been  settled  which  might 
serve  as  a  guide  to  one  without  ideas  of  his  own. 
He  rejected  the  philosophical  distinction  of  his 
day  between  the  intellect  (mens,  animus),  and  the 
animal  soul  (anima),  and  maintained,  in  conformity 
with  our  modern  belief,  the  proper  unity  of  the 
soul  (anima),  of  which  he  regarded  the  intellect  as 
a  part.  But  this  soul,  in  common  with  many  of 
the  ancient  philosophers,  he  conceived  of  as  cor- 
poreal. He  regarded  it  as  diffused  through  the 
body,  possessing  its  shape,  and  constituting  its 
principle  of  life.*  A  living  body  he  probably 
considered  as  essentially  united  with  a  soul;  and 
in  believing  the  Logos  to  have  assumed  a  liv- 
ing body,  he  represents  him  as  having  assumed 
also  a  human  soul.  The  soul  being,  in  his  view, 
corporeal  as  well  as  the  body,  the  conception  or 
the  imagination  thus  became  more  easy  to  be 
apprehended.  But  that,  in  assigning  a  human  soul 
to  Christ,  he  assigned  to  him  likewise  a  human 
intellect,  is  not,  I  think,  to  be  proved.  This  part 
of  the  soul,  he  may  have  thought  was  supplied 
by  the  Logos  ;  and  there  is  much  in  his  writings 
which  favors  the  supposition.  It  appears,  I  think, 
to  have  been  his  prevalent  conception,  in  common 
with  the  other  Fathers  of  his  time,  that  the  Logos 
alone  was  the  proper  agent  in  Christ.  I  will  pro* 

*  See  bis  treatise  DC.  AnimA. 


116  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

• 

duce  only  two  passages,  to  which  there  are  many 
more  or  less  analogous.  In  arguing  against  the 
Gnostics,  who  denied  that  Christ  had  a  fleshly 
body,  he  compares  the  assumption  of  such  a 
body  by  Christ  to  the  appearances  of  angels  re- 
lated in  the  Old  Testament.  "  You  have  read, 
and  believed,"  he  says,  "  that  the  angels  of  the 
Creator  were  sometimes  changed  into  the  like- 
ness of  men,  and  bore  about  so  true  a  body,  that 
Abraham  washed  their  feet,  and  Lot  was  drawn 
away  from  Sodom  by  their  hands ;  an  angel  also 
wrestled  with  a  man,  the  whole  weight  of  whose 
body  was  required  to  throw  him  down  and  detain 
him.  But  that  power  which  you  concede  to  the 
angels,  who  may  assume  a  human  body  and  yet 
remain  angels,  do  you  take  away  from  a  divine 
being  more  powerful  than  they  ?  (hoc  tu  potenti- 
ori  deo  aufers  ?)  As  if  Christ  could  not  continue  a 
divine  being  (deus)  after  having  put  on  human- 
ity." *  He  often  speaks,  though,  I  think,  not  with 
clear  or  consistent  conceptions,  of  the  sufferings  of 
the  Logos.  He  represents  him  as  the  agent  in  all 
those  operations  referred  to  God  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, which  the  Gnostics  regarded  as  unworthy  of 
the  Supreme  Being.  They  are  ignorant,  he  says, 
that,  though  not  suitable  to  the  Father,  they  were 
suitable  to  the  Son ;  and  proceeds  to  express  con- 
ceptions very  different  from  those  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  were  entertained  by  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria. u  They  are  ignorant  that  those  things 

•  De  Came  Christl,  c.  3. 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  117 

were  suitable  to  the  Son,  who  was  about  to  sub- 
mit to  the  accidents  of  humanity,  thirst,  and  hun- 
ger, and  tears,  to  be  born,  and  even  to  die."  * 

THUS  far,  the  loose  general  notion  of  most  of 
those  who  speculated  on  the  subject  seems  to 
have  been,  that  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  was 
analogous  to  the  appearance  of  angels  in  human 
shapes ;  and  to  the  supposed  incarnations  of  hea- 
then deities,  with  the  imagination  of  which  a  great 
majority  of  Christians  were  familiar,  as  converts 
from  Gentilism.f  One  of  the  latest  writers  on 
the  history  of  Christian  doctrines,  Miinter,  late 
Bishop  of  Zealand,  observes,  that  "  The  Catho- 
lic Fathers,  who  maintained  in  opposition  to  the 
Gnostics  the  reality  of  the  body  of  Christ,  appear 
in  part  to  have  placed  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
in  this  body ;  and  their  common  expressions  and 
representations  show  clearly,  that  they  had  very 
imperfect  conceptions  concerning  this  nature,  cor- 
responding to  those  entertained  by  the  heathen,  by 
the  learned  Jews,  and  by  all  parties  of  Christians, 
concerning  the  appearances  of  God  or  of  gods  in 
the  ancient  world."  —  "  The  well-known  error  of 
Apollinaris,  that  Jesus  had  only  an  animal  soul, 
the  principle  of  life;  and  that  the  Divine  Logos 

*  Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  16.  [See,  further,  Norton's  Evidences  of 
the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  Vol.  II.  p.  252,  seqq.,  and  Vol.  III. 
p.  174,  seqq.] 

t  "Alia  sunt  quse  Deus  in  nemulationem  elegerit  sapientioe  secula- 
ris.  Et  tamen  apud  ilium  facilius  creditur  Jupiter  taurus  factus  aut 
cygnus,  quam  vere  homo  Chris tus  penes  Marcionem."  Tertullian, 
De  Came  Christi,  c.  4. 


1  18  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

performed  in  him  all  the  functions  of  an  intelligent 
soul,  was  by  no  means  so  new  as  it  was  represent- 
ed to  be  in  the  fourth  century."  Among  the  Fa- 
thers, according  to  Miinter,  Tertullian  was  perhaps 
the  first  who  affirmed  Jesus  to  have  a  proper  hu- 
man soul ;  although  he  adds,  that  some  passages 
may  be  adduced  from  him  which  appear  to  favor 
the  contrary  opinion.*  Similar  remarks  to  those 
quoted  from  Miinter  are  made  by  Neander  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  History,  f 

Such,  we  may  conclude,  was  the  state  of  opin- 
ion respecting  the  Incarnation  from  the  time  of 
Justin  Martyr,  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  to  that  of  Origen,  in  the  third  century. 
It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  the  foundations  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  deity  of  Christ  were  laid  in 
the  virtual  rejection  of  the  truth  of  his  being, 
properly  speaking,  a  man  ;  a  truth  at  the  present 
day  almost  undisputed.  This  fact  was  admitted 
only  in  words ;  the  sense  of  which  was  nearly  the 
same,  as  when  angels  assuming  a  human  shape 
are  spoken  of  as  men  in  the  Old  Testament.  It 
may  be  observed,  also,  that  in  this,  as  in  other 
doctrines,  the  ancient  Fathers  had  a  great  ad- 
vantage over  those  who  in  later  times  have  been 
denominated  Orthodox;  as  their  doctrine,  which 
represented  the  Logos  as  constituting  the  whole 
of  the  intelligent  nature  of  Christ,  or,  in  other 
words,  made  the  Logos  and  Christ  identical,  was 

*  Dogmcngesehichte,  Band  II.  H.I. 269 -274. 
t  Band  I.  1063, 1064 ;  II.  905.     [See  Torrey's  Translation,  I.  635: 
II.  425.] 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  119 

deiHier  absurd  in  its  statement,  nor  abhorrent  to 
our  natural  feelings.  But  there  is  another  remark, 
which,  though  not  immediately  to  our  present  pur- 
pose, is  still  more  important.  When  we  find  that 
in  the  second  century  Christ  was  no  longer  con- 
sidered as  a  man,  properly  speaking,  but  as  the 
incarnate  Logos  of  God,  we  perceive  how  imper- 
fect a  knowledge  had  been  preserved  by  unwritten 
tradition,  not  merely  of  the  doctrines  of  our  relig- 
ion, but  of  the  impression  which  its  historical  facts 
must  have  made  upon  the  first  believers ;  for  it 
Christ  were  a  man  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word,  those  who  were  conversant  with  him  while 
on  earth  undoubtedly  believed  him  to  be  so.  In 
the  passage  of  our  religion  from  the  Jews  to  whom 
it  had  been  taught,  to  the  Gentiles  through  whom 
it  has  been  transmitted  to  us,  the  current  of  tradi- 
tion was  interrupted.  Hence  followed,  even  in  the 
second  century,  a  state  of  opinion  respecting  the 
facts  and  doctrines  of  Christianity,  which  renders 
it  evident,  that  neither  Christianity  itself,  nor  those 
writings  from  which  we  derive  our  knowledge  of 
it,  had  their  origin,  or  received  their  character,  in 
that  age.  The  Christianity  of  the  Gospels  is  not 
that  of  the  earliest  Christian  Fathers.  Though 
they  had  departed  but  little  from  the  spirit  of  our 
religion,  or  from  its  essential  doctrines  ;  and  though 
their  works,  (I  speak  of  the  Fathers  of  the  first  three 
centuries,)  notwithstanding  the  disrespect  and  un- 
just prejudices  of  many  in  modern  times,  are  monu- 
ments of  noble  minds ;  yet  it  is  equally  true,  that 
we  find  in  their  writings  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
is 


120  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

tianity  intimately  blended  with  opinions  derived 
either  from  the  philosophy  of  the  age,  or  from  the 
popular  notions  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  or  having 
their  source  in  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which 
they  themselves  were  placed. 

WE  come  now  to  Origen,  in  the  first  half  of  the 
third  century,  and  with  him  new  opinions  open 
upon  us.  Origen  fully  and  consistently  main- 
tained the  doctrine  of  a  human  soul  in  Jesus. 
Imbued  with  the  principles  of  Platonism,  he  be- 
lieved this  soul,  in  common  with  all  other  souls, 
to  have  pre-existed,  and  in  its  pre-existent  state 
to  have,  through  its  entire  purity  and  moral  per- 
fection, become  thoroughly  filled  and  penetrated 
by  the  Logos,  of  whom  all  other  souls  partake  in 
proportion  to  their  love  toward  him.  It  thus  be- 
came one  with  the  Logos,  and  formed  the  bond  of 
union  between  the  body  of  Jesus  and  the  divinity 
of  the  Logos  ;  in  consequence  of  which  both  the 
soul  and  body  of  the  Saviour,  being  wholly  mixed 
with  &nd  united  to  the  Logos,  partook  of  his  di- 
vinity and  were  transformed  into  something  di- 
vine.* But  from  the  illustrations  which  Origen 


*  Els  Qfov  ncTapepTjKevai.  Com.  Cels.  Lib.  III.  $  41.  p.  474.  The 
words  should  not  be  rendered,  as  they  are  by  Munscher,  "transformed 
into  God  "  (in  Gott  iibergegangen).  Origen,  here,  as  often  elsewhere, 
uses  0eos  (God),  not  in  our  modern  sense,  as  a  proper  name,  but  as  a 
common  name.  This  use  of  the  term,  which  was  common  to  him 
with  his  contemporaries,  and  continued  to  be  common  after  his 
time,  is  illustrated  by  his  remarks  upon  the  passage,  u  and  the  Logos 
was  God"  (Opp  IV.  p.  48,  seqq.)  ;  in  which  he  contends,  that  the 
Logos  was  "god"  in  an  inferior  sense;—  not,  as  we  should  say,  God, 


OP    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  121 

uses,  respecting  the  connection  between  the  Logog 
and  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  it  is  clear  that  he 
had  no  conception  of  that  form  of  the  doctrine 
which  prevailed  after  his  time.  "  We  do  not,'* 
he  says,  "  suppose  the  visible  and  sensible  body 
of  Jesus  to  have  been  God,  nor  yet  his  soul,  of 
which  he  declared,  My  soul  is  sorrowful  even  unto 
death.  But  as  he  who  says,  /  the  Lord  am  the 
God  of  all  flesh)  and,  There  was  no  other  God 
before  me  and  there  shall  be  none  after  me,  is  be- 
lieved by  the  Jews  to  have  been  God  using  the 
soul  and  body  of  the  prophet  as  an  organ ;  and 
as,  among  the  Gentiles,  he  who  said, 

'I  know  the  number  of  the  sands  and  the  measure  of  the  deep, 
And  I  understand  the  mute  and  hear  him  who  speaks  not,' 

is  understood  to  be  a  god,  addressing  men  by  the 
voice  of  the  Pythoness;  —  so  we  believe  that  the 
divine  Logos,  the  Son  of  the  God  of  all,  spoke  in 
Jesus  when  he  said,  1  am  the  way  and  the  truth  and 

the  life; I  am  the  living  bread  which  has 

descended  from  heaven;  and  when  he  uttered  other 
similar  declarations."  A  little  after,  Origen  com- 
pares that  union  of  the  soul  and  body  of  Jesus 

but  a  god,  or  rather,  not  the  Divine  Being,  but  a  divftio  being ;  and  in 
which  he  maintains  that  '•  beside  the  True  God,  many  beings,  by  par- 
ticipation of  God,  become  divine"  literally,  "  become  gods." 

The  full  illustration  of  the  use  of  the  term  god  as  a  common  name 
would,  I  think,  throw  much  light  upon  the  opinions  both  of  the  an- 
cient Heathens  and  Christians.  But  this  is  not  the  place  to  enter 
upon  it.  [On  this  subject  see  the  author's  Evidences  of  the  Genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels,  Vol.  III.  Additional  Note  D,  "  On  the  Use  of 
the  words  0eo'f  and  Dens.1"  Compare  also  the  quotation  before  given 
from  ClemeU  of  Alexandria,  p.  113,  and  p.  114,  note*.] 


122  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

with  the  Logos,  by  which  they  are  made  one,  to 
the  union  of  all  Christians  with  their  Lord  as  de- 
scribed by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  vi.  17),  «  He  who  is 
joined  to  the  Lord  is  one  spirit  with  him,"  though 
he  represents  it  as  a  union  of  a  far  higher  char- 
acter, and  more  divine.* 

IN  this  unsettled  state  the  doctrine  of  the  Incar- 
nation continued  till  the  fourth  century.  It  is  re- 
marked by  Miinscher,  when  he  comes  to  treat  of 
the  controversies  which  then  arose,  that  "  Most  of 
the  earlier  Fathers  spoke  simply  of  a  human  body, 
which  the  Logos  or  Son  of  God  had  assumed. 
Origen,  on  the  contrary,  ascribed  to  Christ  an  in- 
telligent human  soul,  and  considered  this  as  the 
bond  of  union  between  his  divine  nature  and  his 
human  body.  Some  Fathers  had  also  spoken 
occasionally  of  a  union  or  commingling  of  man 
with  God ;  but  their  propositions  concerning  it 
were  indefinite  and  incidental,  and  had  obtained 
no  authority  in  the  Church ;  and  the  opinion  of 
Origen  was  far  from  being  an  hypothesis  gen- 
erally received."  f  I  quote  this  as  the  state- 
ment of  a  respectable  writer;  without  assenting 
to  all  the  expressions,  as  may  appear  from  what 
precedes. 

IN  the  fourth  century,  the  doctrine  of  Athanasiua 
concerning  the  Trinity  being  established  by  the 
Council  of  Nice,  and  its  partisans,  in  opposition 

*  Origen,  Cont.  Cels.  Lib.  II  §  9.     Opp.  I.  392-394. 
t  Dogmengeschichte  Band  IV.  §77. 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  123 

to  the  Arians,  zealously  using  the  strongest  lan- 
guage concerning  the  divinity  of  the  Son  as  con- 
substantial  with  that  of  the  Father,  the  Orthodox 
faith  was  now  verging  to  such  a  profession  of  their 
equality,  that  to  represent  the  Logos  as  suffering 
in  his  divine  nature  began  to  appear  an  error,  like 
that  of  representing  the  Father  as  suffering.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Arians,  viewing  the  Logos  as 
a  created  being,  found  no  difficulty  in  retaining  the 
ancient  doctrine  concerning  his  simple  incarnation 
in  a  human  body,  and  his  having  suffered  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  words.  Among  their  opponents, 
likewise,  Apollinaris,  who  had  been  the  friend  of 
Athanasius,  and  distinguished  for  his  zeal  in  as- 
serting the  Orthodox  faith  concerning  the  Trinity, 
undertook,  with  a  less  fortunate  result,  to  define 
the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  He,  with  the  Ari- 
ans and  the  ancient  Fathers,  maintained  that  the 
Logos  supplied  in  Christ  the  place  of  the  human 
intellect.  He  also  freely  used  the  language,  which 
has  since  become  common,  concerning  the  suffer- 
ings of  the  Divinity  in  Christ ;  and  his  opponents, 
in  consequence,  represented  him  as  believing  the 
Divine  Nature  to  be  passible.  But  it  seems  most 
probable  that  he,  like  others,  used  this  language 
without  meaning.  His  doctrine  was  condemned 
by  1he  second  general  council,  that  of  Constan- 
tinople (A.  D.  381),  in  which  it  was  decreed  that 
Christ  was  not  only  "  the  perfect  Logos  of  God," 
but  also  "a  perfect  man  possessed  of  a  rational 
soul";  and  the  latter  doctrine  was  thus  at  last 
established  as  Orthodox. 


124  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

THE  Deity  being  impassible,  it  would  seem,  in- 
deed, if  Christ  really  suffered,  that  it  was  necessary 
to  regard  him  as  a  perfect  man,  capable  of  suffer- 
ing. But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  were  those  oi*  a  man  only,  it  might  seem  to 
follow  that  Christ  was  only  a  man,  and  the  whole 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation  would  disappear. 

In  this  state  of  things  recourse  was  had  to  a 
doctrine  which  has  been  denominated  the  Com- 
munication of  Properties.*  It  was  maintained 
that,  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ  being 
united  in  one  person,  what  was  true  of  either  na- 
ture might  be  asserted  of  Christ.  Christ  then 
being  God,  it  might  be  affirmed  with  truth  that 
God  was  born,  hungered,  thirsted,  was  crucified, 
and  died.  It  was  maintained,  at  the  same  time, 
that  the  Divine  Nature  was  impassible  and  un- 
changeable. The  last  proposition  annihilated  all 
meaning  in  the  former,  not  leaving  it  even  the 
poor  merit  of  being  the  most  offensive  mode  of 
expressing  some  conception  that  might  be  appre- 
hended as  possible.  What  sense  those  who  have 
asserted  the  sufferings  of  God  have  fancied  that 
the  words  might  have,  is  a  question  which,  after 
all  that  has  been  written  upon  the  subject,  is  left 
very  much  to  conjecture.  I  imagine  that  it  is,  at 
the  present  day,  the  gross  conception  of  some  who 
think  themselves  Orthodox  on  this  point,  that  the 
divine  and  human  natures  being  united  in  Christ 
as  the  Mediator,  a  compound  nature,  different  from 
either  and  capable  of  suffering,  was  thus  formed. 

*  'AiTiSocriff.  —  Koipcoi/m 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  125 

THE  doctrine  of  the  Communication  of  Prop- 
erties, says  Le  Clerc,  "  is  as  intelligible  as  if  one 
were  to  say  that  there  is  a  circle  which  is  so  united 
with  a  triangle;  that  the  circle  has  the  properties 
of  the  triangle,  and  the  triangle  those  of  the  cir- 
cle." '  It  is  discussed  at  length  by  Petavius,  with 
his  usual  redundance  of  learning.  The  vast  folio 
of  that  writer  containing  the  history  of  the  Incar- 
nation, is  one  of  the  most  striking  and  most  mel- 
ancholy monuments  of  human  folly  which  the 
world  has  to  exhibit.  In  the  history  of  other  de- 
partments of  science,  we  find  abundant  errors  and 
extravagances ;  but  Orthodox  theology  seems  to 
have  been  the  peculiar  region  of  words  without 
meaning ;  of  doctrines  confessedly  false  in  their 
proper  sense,  and  explained  in  no  other ;  of  the 
most  portentous  absurdities  put  forward  as  truths 
of  the  highest  import;  and  of  contradictory  prop- 
ositions thrown  together  without  an  attempt  to 
reconcile  them.  A  main  error  running  through 
the  whole  system,  as  well  as  other  systems  of  false 
philosophy,  is,  that  words  possess  an  intrinsic 
meaning,  not  derived  from  the  usage  of  men ; 
that  they  are  not  mere  signs  of  human  ideas,  but 
a  sort  of  real  entities,  capable  of  signifying  what 
transcends  our  conceptions;  and  that  when  they 
express  to  human  reason  only  an  absurdity,  they 
may  still  be  significant  of  a  high  mystery  or  a 
hidden  truth,  and  are  to  be  believed  without  being 
understood. 

*  Ars  Critica,  P.  11.  8. 1.  c.  9.  {11. 


126  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

IN  the  fifth  century,  the  doctrine  of  the  Hypo- 
static  Union  was  still  further  defined.  Before  this 
time,  says  Mosheim,  "it  had  been  settled  by  the 
decrees  of  former  councils  [those  of  Nice  and  Con- 
stantinople] that  Christ  was  truly  God  and  truly 
man ;  but  there  had  as  yet  been  no  controversy 
and  no  decision  of  any  council  concerning  the 
mode  and  effect  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures 
in  Christ.  In  consequence,  there  was  a  want  of 
agreement  among  Christian  teachers  in  their  lan- 
guage concerning  this  mystery."*  The  contro- 
versy which  now  arose  had  its  origin  in  the  de- 
nial of  Nestorius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  that 
Mary  could  in  strictness  of  speech  be  called  "  the 
Mother  of  God,"  a  title  which  had  been  applied  to 
her  by  Athanasius  himself.  Though  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  expressions  more  shocking,  yet  this  title 
may  perhaps  sound  harshly  in  the  ears  of  most 
Protestants.  Mosheim,  however,  who  is  solicitous 
to  pass  some  censure  upon  Nestorius,  finds  but 
two  faults  or  errors  to  impute  to  him,  the  first  of 
which  is,  that  "  he,  rashly,  and  to  the  offence  of 
many,  wished  to  set  aside  an  innocent  title  which 
had  been  long  in  common  use."  f  The  other  is, 
that  he  presumptuously  employed  unsuitable  ex- 
pressions arid  comparisons  in  speaking  of  a  mys- 
tery transcending  all  comprehension.  Cyril  was  at 
this  time  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  the  rival  of 
Nestorius,  —  a  turbulent,  ambitious,  unprincipled 
man.  He  took  advantage  of  the  opinions  of  Nes« 

*  Hist.  Eccles.  Saec.  V.  Pars  II.  c.  5.  §  5. 

t  ** vocabulum  dudum  tritum  et  innoceiis.''     Ibid.,  §  9. 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  127 

torius  to  charge  him  with  heresy,  and  procured  the 
calling  of  the  third  general  council,  that  of  Ephe- 
sus,  A.  D.  431.  In  this  council  Cyril  presided,  and 
the  heresy  of  Nestorius  was  anathematized^  and 
Nestorius  himself  deposed,  and  denounced  as  a 
"  second  Judas."  On  a  subject  concerning  which 
the  parties  understood  neither  each  other  nor  them- 
selves, it  has  been  found  by  modern  inquirers  hard 
to  determine  in  what  particulars  the  heresy  of  the 
"  new  Judas  "  differed  from  the  Orthodoxy  of  Cyril, 
except  in  the  denial  that  Mary  could  in  strictness 
of  speech  be  called  "  the  Mother  of  God."  In  gen- 
eral, Nestorius  was  charged  with  making  so  wide 
a  distinction  between  the  human  and  divine  na- 
tures in  Christ,  as  to  separate  Christ  into  two  per- 
sons. There  is,  however,  no  ground  for  supposing 
that  Nestorius  maintained  so  heretical  and  so  ra- 
tional an  opinion,  as  that  God  was  one  person,  and 
the  inspired  messenger  of  God  another.  Whatever 
was  meant  by  the  accusation  of  his  dividing  Christ 
into  two  persons,  he  himself  earnestly  denied  its 
truth;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  appears  that 
Cyril,  in  his  eagerness  to  widen  the  distance  be- 
tween himself  and  his  rival,  either  fell  into  the 
snare  of  the  Apollinarian  heresy,  or  at  least  grazed 
its  limits.  Cyril  prevailed  in  his  factious  contest, 
through  his  influence  with  the  officers  of  the  im- 
perial household,  and  the  bribes  which  he  lavished 
upon  them ;  for  what  was  Orthodoxy  was  to  be 
determined  in  the  last  resort  by  the  Emperor  Theo- 
dosius,  or  rather  by  the  women  and  eunuchs  of  his 
court  "  Thanks  to  the  purse  of  St.  Cyril,"  saya 


128  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

Le  Clerc,  "  the  Romish  Church,  which  regards 
councils  as  infallible,  is  not,  at  the  present  day, 
Nestorian."*  The  creeds  of  Protestants  are  equally 
indebted  to  St.  Cyril  for  their  purity. 

BUT  notwithstanding  the  decision  of  the  Council 
of  Ephesus,  the  contest  still  raged.  The  monophysite 
doctrine,  as  it  was  called,  that  is,  the  doctrine  of 
but  a  single  nature  in  Christ,  the  heresy  of  Apolli- 
naris,  on  the  very  borders  of  which  lay  the  Ortho- 
doxy of  Cyril,  was  maintained  by  Eutyches,  who 
had  been  a  friend  of  Cyril  and  a  bitter  opponent 
of  the  Nestorians.  Eutyches  was  condemned  and 
deposed  by  Flavian,  patriarch  of  Constantinople. 
But  though  Cyril  was  dead,  his  party  still  pre- 
dominated. A  council  was  called  at  Ephesus,  the 
proceedings  of  which  were  determined  by  the  will 
and  the  violence  of  Dioscurus,  who  had  succeeded 
him  as  patriarch  of  Alexandria.  The  opinions  of 
Eutyches  were  sanctioned  by  it;  and  Flavian,  who 
was  present,  suffered  such  personal  outrages  from 
his  theological  opponents,  that  he  only  escaped  to 
die  on  the  third  day  following.  This  council, 
however,  the  Church  of  Rome  does  not  regard  as 
oecumenical  and  entitled  to  authority.  Leo,  then 
pope,  joined  the  party  opposed  to  Dioscurus,  which 
through  his  aid  finally  prevailed;  and  the  Council 
of  Ephesus  received  a  name,  of  which  we  may  best 
perhaps  express  the  force  in  English  by  calling  ii 
a  Council  of  Banditti.f 

*  Biblioth.  Univers.,  Suite  du  Tome  XXI.  p.  27. 

f    2uj/o86s  XrjVTplKT}. 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  129 

So  far,  however,  as  its  authority  was  acknowl- 
edged, the  Church  had  been  plunged  by  it  into 
the  monophysite  heresy.  But  a  new  council  was 
called,  which  is  reckoned  as  the  fourth  general 
council,  that  of  Chalcedon,  A.  D.  451.  The  ma- 
jority of  this  council  was  composed  of  rnonophy- 
sites ;  but  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope  favored  the 
opposite  party.  Their  authority  prevailed;  and 
the  result  may  be  given  in  the  words  of  Gibbon. 
"  The  Legates  threatened,  the  Emperor  was  abso- 
lute  In  the  name  of  the  fourth  general  coun- 
cil, the  Christ  in  one  person,  but  in  two  natures, 
was  announced  to  the  Catholic  world :  an  invisi- 
ble line  was  drawn  between  the  heresy  of  Apolli- 
naris  and  the  faith  of  St.  Cyril,  and  the  road  to 
paradise,  a  bridge  as  sharp  as  a  razor,  was  sus- 
pended over  the  abyss  by  the  master  hand  of  the 
theological  artist."  *  "  This  council,"  says  Mo- 
sheim,  "  decided  that  all  Christians  should  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  one  person  in  two  distinct 
natures  without  any  confusion  or  mixture,  which 
has  continued  to  be  the  common  faith/'  f  It  has 
continued  to  be  the  doctrine  of  creeds;  what  is 
now  the  faith  of  those  who  consider  themselves  as 
believers  in  the  Incarnation,  is  probably  a  question 
which  the  greater  number  have  never  thought  of 
answering. 

OP  the  language,  however,  that  has  been  used 
in  modern  times  concerning  this  doctrine,  it  may 

*  [Decline  and  Fall,  &c.,  Ch.  XL VII.] 
t  Hist.  Eccles.  S*c.  V.  P.  II.  c.  5.  *  15. 


130  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

be   worth   while   to   produce    one   or  two    speci- 
mens. 

Lord  Bacon  gives  us  this  account  of  the  belief 
of  a  Christian  :  — 

"  He  believes  a  Virgin  to  be  a  Mother  of  a 
Son ;  and  that  very  Son  of  hers  to  be  her  Maker. 
He  believes  him  to  have  been  shut  up  in  a  nar- 
row room,  whom  heaven  and  earth  could  not  con- 
tain. He  believes  him  to  have  been  born  in 
time,  who  was  and  is  from  everlasting.  He  be- 
lieves him  to  have  been  a  weak  child  carried  in 
arms,  who  is  the  Almighty;  and  him  once  to 
have  died,  who  only  hath  life  and  immortality 
in  himself."* 

The  following  passage  is  from  a  sermon  by  Lr. 
South:  — 

"  But  now  was  there  ever  any  wonder  compara 
ble  to  this!  to  behold  Divinity  thus  clothed  in  flesh 
the  Creator  of  all  things  humbled  not  only  to  the 
company,  but  also  to  the  cognation,  of  his  creatures ! 
It  is  as  if  we  should  imagine  the  whole  world  not 
only  represented  upon,  but  also  contained  in,  one  of 
our  little  artificial  globes ;  or  the  body  of  the  sun 
enveloped  in  a  cloud  as  big  as  a  man's  hand ;  all 
which  would  be  looked  upon  as  astonishing  im- 
possibilities ;  and  yet  as  short  of  the  other,  as  the 
greatest  Finite  is  of  an  Infinite,  between  which  the 
disparity  is  immeasurable.  For  that  God  should 
thus  in  a  manner  transform  Himself,  and  subdue 
and  master  all  his  glories  to  a  possibility  of  human 

*  Characters  of  ft  Believing  Christian. 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  131 

apprehension  and  converse,  the  best  reason  would 
have  thought  it  such  a  thing  as  God  could  not  do, 
had  it  not  seen  it  artual/y  done.  It  is  (as  it  were) 
to  cancel  the  essential  distances  of  things,  to  re- 
move the  bounds  of  nature,  to  bring  heaven  and 
earth,  and  (which  is  more)  both  ends  of  the  con- 
tradiction, together."  *  • 

To  one  wholly  ignorant  of  theological  contro- 
versy, these  passages  might  have  the  air  of  mali- 
cious irony.  But  a  little  further  acquaintance 
with  creeds  and  theological  systems  would  sat- 
isfy him  that  such  language  may  be  used  in 
earnest. 

It  is  with  some  hesitation  that  I  adduce  another 
passage  from  the  same  sermon  of  South,  which 
occurs  a  few  pages  after  what  has  been  quoted. 
When  thus  treating,  as  it  were,  of  the  morbid 
anatomy  of  the  human  mind,  it  is  often  a  question 
how  far  one  ought  to  proceed  in  exhibiting  to  com- 
mon view  the  more  disgusting  cases  of  disease. 
The  reverence  due  to  the  subjects  which  are  pro- 
faned, and  an  unwillingness  to  shock  the  feelings 
of  his  readers,  should  restrain  a  writer  from  any 
unnecessary  display.  But  it  is  not  a  little  impor- 
tant that  the  character  of  the  doctrine  under  con- 
sideration, and  the  monstrous  extravagances  to 
which  it  leads,  should  be  well  understood.  In 
reading,  then,  the  following  words,  it  is  to  be  rec- 
ollected that  the  author  was  a  man  distinguished 
as  a  fine  writer,  whose  uncommon  natural  talents 

*  South's  Sermons,  6th  ed.,  1727,  Vol.  III.  p.  299.     Sermon  on 
Christmas  Day,  1665. 

16 


132  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOC  TRINF 

had  been  cultivated  by  learning.  From  the  works 
of  grosser  minds,  it  would  be  easy  to  produce  man) 
passages  more  intolerable. 

"  Men,"  says  South,  "  cannot  persuade  them- 
selves that  a  Deity  and  Infinity  should  lie  within 
so  narrow  a  compass  as  the  contemptible  dimen- 
sions of  an  human  body;  that  Omnipotence,  Om- 
niscience, and  Omnipresence  should  be  ever  wrapt 
in  swaddling-clothes,  and  abased  to  the  homely 
usages  of  a  stable  and  a  manger ;  that  the  glo- 
rious Artificer  of  the  whole  universe,  who  spread 
out  the  heavens  like  a  curtain,  and  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  the  earth,  could  ever  turn  carpenter,  and 
exercise  an  inglorious  trade  in  a  little  cell.  They 
cannot  imagine  that  He  ivho  commands  the  cattle 
upon  a  thousand  hills,  and  takes  up  the  ocean  in  the 
hollow  of  his  hand,  could  be  subject  to  the  mean- 
nesses of  hunger  and  thirst,  and  be  afflicted  in  all 
his  appetites.  That  he  who  once  created,  and  at 
present  governs,  and  shall  hereafter  judge,  the 
world,  shall  be  abused  in  all  his  concerns  and  rela- 
tions, be  scourged,  spit  upon,  mocked,  and  at  last 
crucified.  All  which  are  passages  which  lie  ex- 
tremely cross  to  the  notions  and  conceptions  that 
reason  has  framed  to  itself,  of  that  high  and 
impassible  perfection  that  resides  in  the  divine 
nature." 

There  is  a  short  poem  written  by  Watts  after 
the  death  of  Locke,*  in  which,  on  account  of  "  the 
wavering  and  the  cold  assent"  which  that  great 

*  On  Mr.  Locke's  Annotations,  left  behind  him  at  his  death.  [See 
Watts's  Works,  IV.  396,  397.] 


O*     THE    KvpQSTATlC    UNION.  133 

man  was  supposed  by  him  to  have  given  to 
"  themes  divinely  true,"  he  invokes  the  aid  of 
Charity  that  he  may  see  him  in  heaven.  What 
were  these  "  themes  divinely  true,"  appears  in  the 
following  verses :  — 

*'  Reason  could  scarce  sustain  to  see 
The  Almighty  One,  the  Eternal  Three, 
Or  bear  the  infant  Deity; 
Scarce  could  her  pride  descend  to  own 
Her  Maker  stooping  from  his  throne, 
And  dressed  in  glories  so  unknown. 
A  ransomed  world,  a  bleeding  God, 
And  Heaven  appeased  by  flowing  blood, 
Were  themes  too  painful  to  be  understood." 

The  Eternal  Three !  The  Deity  an  infant!  God 
bleeding!  The  Maker  of  the  universe  appeasing 
Heaven  by  his  flowing  blood !  These  are  not  doc- 
trines to  be  trifled  with.  Consider  what  meaning 
can  be  put  upon  these  words ;  take  the  least  offen- 
sive sense  they  can  be  used  to  express,  and  then 
let  any  one  ask  himself  this  question  :  If  these 
doctrines  are  not  doctrines  of  Christianity,  what 
are  they  ?  It  is  a  question  that  deserves  serious 
consideration.  There  is  but  an  alternative.  If 
they  are  not  doctrines  of  Christianity,  then  they 
are  among  the  most  insane  fictions  of  human 
folly:  the  monstrous  legends  of  Hindoo  supersti- 
tion present  nothing  more  revolting,  or  more  in 
contrast  with  the  truths  of  our  religion. 

But,  in  fact,  some  of  the  most  portentous  of 
these  expressions  are  used  utterly  without  mean- 
ing. They  can  express  nothing  which  an  intelli- 
gent man  will  admit  that  he  intends  to  expresa 


134  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

Attempt  to  give  a  sense  to  the  propositions,  God 
was  an  infant;  God  poured  out  his  blood;  God 
died.  Even  he  whom  familiarity  has  rendered 
insensible  to  language  really  equivalent,  may 
shudder  at  so  naked  a  statement  of  what  he 
professes  to  believe.  Let  him  attempt  to  give 
a  sense  to  these  words,  and  just  in  proportion 
as  he  approaches  toward  the  shadow  of  a  mean- 
ing, will  he  approach  toward  a  conception,  from 
which,  if  he  have  the  common  sentiments  of  a 
man  and  a  Christian,  he  will  shrink  back  with 
abhorrence. 

Since  Christianity,  then,  has  been  represented  as 
teaching  such  doctrines,  and  even  as  suspending 
the  salvation  of  men  upon  their  belief,  is  it  won- 
derful that  it  has  had,  and  that  it  has,  so  little 
power  over  men's  minds  and  hearts  ?  Could 
means  more  effectual  have  been  devised  for  de- 
stroying its  credit  and  counteracting  its  efficacy? 
If  TRUE  RELIGION  be  the  great  support  of  the  moral 
virtues,  and  essential  to  the  happiness  of  individ- 
uals and  the  well-being  of  society,  is  it  strange 
that  there  has  been  so  little  virtue,  happiness,  or 
peace  in  the  world  ?  And  what,  then,  are  our 
duties  as  Christians,  and  as  friends  of  human 
kind  ?  What  is  the  duty  of  all  enlightened  men, — 
of  all  qualified  to  inquire  into  the  character  and 
history  of  these  doctrines,  —  of  all  who  profess  or 
countenance  them  with  an  uncertain  faith  ?  Of 
such  as  are  fitted  to  think  and  act  upon  subjects 
of  this  nature,  there  is  but  one  class  to  whom  a 
solemn  appeal  may  not  be  made.  It  consists  of 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  135 

those  who,  after  a  thorough  examination,  have  felt 
themselves  compelled  to  receive  these  doctrines  — 
if  the  thing  be  possible  —  as  doctrines  taught  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles. 


SECTION  VI. 

DIFFICULTIES  THAT  MAY  REMAIN  IN  SOME  MINDS  RESPECT 
ING  THE  PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  ALLEGED  BY  TRINITA- 
RIANS. 

As  I  have  endeavored  to  express  myself  as  con- 
cisely as  possible,  I  shall  not  recapitulate  what  I 
have  written.  If  any  one  should  think  the  argu- 
ments that  have  been  urged  deserve  consideration, 
but  yet  not  be  fully  satisfied  of  their  correctness, 
it  will  be  but  the  labor  of  an  hour  or  two  to  read 
them  over  again.  The  time  will  be  well  spent, 
should  it  contribute  toward  fn«.ng  his  faith  from 
an  essential  error,  and  giving  him  clearer,  more 
correct,  and  consequently  more  ennobling  and  op- 
erative conceptions  of  Christianity. 

Here,  then,  as  I  have  had  occasion  to  say  before, 
I  might  close  the  discussion.  But  even  if  the  truth 
for  which  I  am  contending  be  fully  established,  still 
difficulties  may  remain  in  some  minds  which  it  is 
desirable  to  remove.  Like  a  great  part  of  Scrip- 
ture, the  passages  adduced  in  support  of  the  Trin- 
itarian doctrines  have  been  interpreted  upon  no 
general  principles,  or  upon  none  which  can  be 
defended.  But  many  persons  have  been  taught 
from  their  childhood  to  associate  a  false  mean- 
ing with  words  and  texts  of  the  Bible.  This 


PREJUDICES    TO    BE    REMOVED.  137 

meaning,  borrowed  from  the  schools  of  technical 
theology,  is  that  which  immediately  presents  itself 
to  their  minds,  vhen  those  words  and  texts  occur. 
They  can  hardly  avoid  considering  the  expositions 
so  familiar  to  them,  as  those  alone  that  could 
be  obvious  to  an  unprejudiced  reader.  He  who 
would  break  the  associatious  which  they  have  be- 
tween certain  words  and  a  certain  meaning,  and 
substitute  the  true  sense  for  that  to  which  they 
are  accustomed,  appears  to  them  to  be  doing  vio- 
lence to  the  language  of  Scripture. 

Now  these  prejudices,  so  far  as  they  are  capable 
of  being  removed,  can  be  removed  only  by  estab- 
lishing correct  principles  of  interpretation,  applying 
them  to  the  subject  in  hand,  and  pointing  out  the 
true  or  the  probable  meaning  of  the  more  impor- 
tant passages  that  have  been  misunderstood.  This, 
therefore,  I  shall  endeavor  to  do  in  the  sections  that 
follow. 


V 

UNIVERSITY 


SECTION  VII. 

ON  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  LANGUAGE. 

SUPPOSING  the  doctrines  maintained  by  Trin- 
itarians to  be  capable  of  proof,  the  state  of  the 
case  between  them  and  their  opponents  would  be 
this.  They  quote  certain  texts,  and  explain  them 
in  a  sense  which,  as  they  believe,  supports  their 
opinions.  We  maintain  that  the  words  were  in- 
tended to  express  a  very  different  meaning.  How 
is  the  question  to  be  decided  ?  We  do  riot  deny 
that  there  are  certain  expressions  in  these  texts, 
which,  nakedly  considered,  will  bear  a  Trinitarian 
sense ;  how  is  it  then  to  be  ascertained,  whether 
this  sense  or  some  other  was  intended  by  the 
writer  ? 

In  order  to  answer  this  question,  it  is  necessary 
to  enter  into  some  explanation  concerning  the 
nature  of  language  and  the  principles  of  its  in- 
terpretation. The  art  of  interpretation  derives  its 
origin  from  the  intrinsic  ambiguity  of  language. 
What  I  mean  to  express  by  this  term  is  the  fact, 
that  a  very  large  portion  of  sentences,  considered 
in  themselves,  that  is,  if  regard  be  had  merely  to 
the  ivords  of  lohich  they  are  composed,  are  capable 
of  expressing  not  one  meaning  only,  but  two  or 
more  different  meanings ;  or  (to  state  this  fact  in 


PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION.  139 

other  terms)  that  in  very  many  cases,  the  same 
sentence,  like  the  same  single  word,  may  be  used 
to  express  various  and  often  very  different  senses. 
Now  in  a  great  part  of  what  we  find  written  con- 
cerning the  interpretation  of  language,  and  in  a 
large  portion  of  the  specimens  of  criticism  which 
we  meet  with,  especially  upon  the  Scriptures,  this 
fundamental  truth,  this  fact  which  lies  at  the  very 
bottom  of  the  art  of  interpretation,  has  either  been 
overlooked,  or  not  regarded  in  its  relations  and 
consequences.  It  may  be  illustrated  by  a  single 
example.  St.  John  thus  addresses  the  Christians  to 
whom  he  was  writing,  in  his  First  Epistle,  ii.  20 :  — 

"  You  have  an  anointing' from  the  Holy  One,  and 
know  all  thing's" 

If  we  consider  these  words  in  themselves  merely, 
we  shall  perceive  how  uncertain  is  their  significa- 
tion, and  how  many  different  meanings  they  may 
be  used  to  express.  The  first  clause,  "  You  have 
an  anointing  from  the  Holy  One,"  may  signify, — 

1.  Through  the  favor  of  God,  you  have  become 
Christians  or  believers  in  Christ;  anointing  being 
a  ceremony  of  consecration,  and  Christians  being 
considered  as  consecrated  and  set  apart  from  the 
rest  of  mankind. 

2.  Or  it  may  mean,  You  have  been  truly  sancti- 
fied in  heart  and  life :  a  figure  borrowed  from  out- 
ward consecration  being  used  to  denote  inward 
holiness. 

3.  Or,    You  have  been  endued  with  miraculous 
powers :  consecrated  as  prophets  and  teachers  in 
the  Christian  community. 


140  PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION. 

4.  Or,  You  have  been  well  instructed  in  the  truths 
of  Christianity* 

I  forbear  to  mention  other  meanings,  which  the 
word  anointing  might  be  used  to  express.  These 
are  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

The  term  Holy  One,  in  such  a  relation  as  it 
holds  to  the  other  words  in  the  present  sentence, 
may  denote  either  God,  or  Christ,  or  some  other 
being. 

You  know  all  things,  literally  expresses  the  mean- 
ing, You  have  the  attribute  of  omniscience.  Beside 
this  meaning  it  may  signify,  You  are  fully  ac- 
quainted with  all  the  objects  of  human  knowl- 
edge; or,  You  know  every  truth  connected  ivith 
Christianity;  or,  You  have  all  the  knowledge  ne- 
cessary to  form  your  faith  and  direct  your  con- 
duct; or  the  proposition  may  require  some  other 
limitation ;  for  all  things  is  one  of  those  terms, 
the  meaning  of  which  is  continually  to  be  re- 
strained and  modified  by  a  regard  to  the  subject 
present  to  the  mind  of  the  writer. 

This  statement  may  afford  some  imperfect  notion 
of  the  various  senses  which  the  words  before  us 
may  be  used  to  express;  and  of  the  uncertainty 
that  must  exist  about  their  meaning,  when  they 
are  regarded  without  reference  to  those  considera- 
tions by  which  it  ought  to  be  determined.  I  say, 
imperfect,  because  we  have  really  kept  one  very 
important  consideration  in  mind,  that  they  were 
written  by  an  Apostle  to  a  Christian  community, 

*  See  Wetstein's  notes  on  this  passage,  and  on  I  Tim.  iv.  7. 


PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION.  141 

Cutting  this  out  of  view,  it  would  not  be  easy  to 
fix  the  limit  of  their  possible  meanings.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  this  passage  has  been  adduced 
merely  by  way  of  illustration ;  and  that,  if  it  were 
necessary,  an  indefinite  number  of  similar  exam- 
ples might  be  quoted. 

I  will  mention,  and  I  can  barely  mention,  some 
of  the  principal  causes  of  the  intrinsic  ambiguity 
of  language.  1.  Almost  every  word  is  used  in  a 
variety  of  senses ;  and  some  words  in  a  great 
variety.  Now,  as  we  assign  one  or  another  of 
these  senses  to  different  words  in  a  sentence,  we 
change  the  meaning  of  the  whole  sentence.  If 
they  are  important  words,  and  the  different  senses 
which  we  assign  vary  much  from  each  other,  we 
change  its  meaning  essentially.  2.  But  beside  their 
common  significations,  words  may  be  used  in  an 
undefined  number  of  figurative  senses.  A  large 
proportion  of  sentences  may,  therefore,  be  under- 
stood either  figuratively  or  literally.  Considered  in 
themselves,  they  present  no  intrinsic  character  that 
may  enable  us  to  determine  whether  they  are  liter- 
al or  figurative.  They  may  often  be  understood  in 
more  than  one  literal,  and  in  more  than  one  figura- 
tive sense ;  and  a  choice  is  then  to  be  made  among 
all  these  different  senses.  3.  A  very  large  portion 
of  sentences  which  are  not  what  rhetoricians  call 
figurative,  are  yet  not  to  be  understood  strictly, 
not  to  the  letter,  but  with  some  limitation,  and 
often  with  a  limitation  which  contracts  exceedingly 
their  literal  meaning.  "  I  do  not,"  says  Mr.  Burke, 
addressing  the  friend  to  whom  he  is  writing,  in  his 


142  PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION. 

Reflections    on   the    French    Revolution, —  "1   do 
not  conceive  you  to   be  of  that  sophistical,  cap- 
tious spirit,  or  of  that  uncandid  dulness,  as  to  re- 
quire for  every  general  observation  or  sentiment  an 
explicit  detail  of  the   correctives  and  exceptions, 
which  reason  will  presume  to  be  included  in  all 
the  general  propositions  which  come  from  reason- 
able men."     Sentences  that  are  general  or  univer- 
sal in  their  terms,  are  often  to  be  regarded  merely 
in  relation  to  the  subject  treated  of,  or  the  persons 
addressed ;  and  their  meaning  is  often  to  be  greatly 
limited  by  a  regard  to  one  or  another  of  these  con- 
siderations.    4.  In  eloquence,  in  poetry,  in  popular 
writing  of  every  sort,  and  not  least  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, a  great  part  of  the   language   used  is  the 
language  of  emotion   or  feeling.     The  strict  and 
literal  meaning  of  this  language  is,  of  course,  a 
meaning  which   the  words    may  be   used   to   ex- 
press; but  this   is  rarely  the  true  meaning.     The 
language  of  feeling  is  very  different  from  that  of 
philosophical  accuracy.    The  mind,  when  strongly 
excited,  delights  in  general,  unlimited  propositions, 
in  hyperboles,  in  bold  figures  of  every  sort,  in  forci- 
ble presentations   of  thought  addressed   indirectly 
to  the  understanding  through  the  medium  of  the 
imagination,  and  in  the   utterance  of  those  tem- 
porary false  judgments  which  are  the  natural  re- 
sult, and  consequently  among   the    most   natural 
expressions,  of  strong  emotion.     Different  senses 
in  which  such  language  may  be  understood  often 
present  themselves ;  and  it  is  sometimes  not  easy 
to  determine  which  to  adopt 


PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION.  143 

But  further,  language  is  conventional ;  and  the 
use  of  it  varies  much  in  different  ages  and  na- 
tions. No  uniform  standard  has  existed  by  which 
to  measure  the  expressions  of  men's  conceptions 
and  feelings.  In  one  state  of  society,  language 
assumes  a  bolder  character,  more  unrestrained, 
and  more  remote  from  its  proper  sense ;  in  anoth- 
er, the  modes  of  speech  are  more  cool  and  exact. 
The  expressions  of  compliment  and  respect,  for 
instance,  in  France  or  Italy,  and  the  expressions 
of  the  Orientals  generally,  are  not  proportional 
to  our  own.  A  sentence  translated  verbally  from 
one  language  into  another  will  often  convey  a 
stronger  or  more  unlimited  meaning  than  was 
intended  by  him  who  uttered  it.  "John,"  says 
our  Saviour,  "  came  neither  eating  nor  drinking."  * 
These  words,  as  spoken  by  him,  had  nothing  of 
the  paradoxical  character  which  would  belong  to 
them  if  now  uttered  for  the  first  time  in  our  own 
language.  They  meant  only  that  John,  leading 
an  ascetic  life,  refrained  from  taking  food  after 
the  common  fashion,  at  regular  meals.  —  "Work 
out  your  salvation,"  says  St.  Paul,  "  with  fear  and 
trembling."  f  The  Apostle,  who  elsewhere  exhorts 
Christians  to  "  rejoice  always,"  did  not  here  intend 
that  their  life  should  be  one  of  anxious  dread ;  and 
we  may  express  his  purpose  by  saying,  "  with  ear- 
nest solicitude."  He  tells  the  Corinthians  that  they 
had  received  Titus  with  "  fear  and  trembling,"  J 
by  which  words,  in  this  place,  he  means  what  we 


Matthew  xi.  18.  t  Philippians  ii.  13  |  2  Cor.  vii  15. 

17 


144  FRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION. 

might  call  "respect  and  deference." —  Christ 
that  he  who  would  be  his  follower  must  "  hate  fa- 
ther and  mother."  *  The  genius  of  our  language 
hardly  admits  of  so  bold  a  figure,  by  which,  how- 
ever, nothing  more  was  signified,  than  that  his 
followers  must  be  prepared  to  sacrifice  their  dear- 
est affections  in  his  cause.  —  But  even  where  there 
is  no  peculiar  boldness  or  strength  of  expression  in 
the  original,  we  are  liable  to  be  deceived  by  a  want 
of  analogy  to  our  modes  of  speech.  Figures  and 
turns  of  expression  familiar  in  one  language  are 
strange  in  another ;  and  an  expression  to  which 
we  are  not  accustomed  strikes  us  with  more  force, 
and  seems  more  significant,  than  one  in  common 
use,  of  which  the  meaning  is  in  fact  the  same. 
We  are  very  liable  to  mistake  the  purport  of  words 
which  appear  under  an  aspect  unknown  or  infre- 
quent in  our  native  tongue.  The  declaration, 
"  I  and  my  Father  are  one,"  f  may  seem  to  us  at 
first  sight  almost  too  bold  for  a  human  being  to 
use  concerning  God,  merely  because  we  are  not 
'accustomed  to  this  expression  in  grave  discourse. 
But  in  familiar  conversation  no  one  would  mis- 
understand me,  if,  while  transacting  some  busi- 
ness as  the  agent  of  a  friend,  I  should  say,  "  I 
and  my  friend  are  one";  meaning  that  I  am  fully 
empowered  to  act  as  his  representative.  The 
passage  quoted  is  to  be  understood  in  a  similar 
manner;  and  the  liability  to  mistake  its  meaning 
arises  only  from  our  not  being  familiar  with  its 

*  Luke  xiv.  26.  t  John  x.  30. 


PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION.  145 

use  on  solemn  occasions. — "The  Son  of  Man 
came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many."  *  We 
do  not  express  the  intended  figure  in  this  par- 
ticular form,  the  noun  "  ransom"  being  commonly 
employed  by  us  only  to  denote  a  price  paid  to 
him  who  has  had  power  over  the  ransomed.  The 
passage  has,  consequently,  been  misunderstood; 
but  the  verb  "ransom"  has  a  wider  significancy, 
corresponding  to  the  sense  of  our  Saviour ;  and 
by  a  very  slight  change  in  the  mode  of  expres- 
sion, the  occasion  of  mistake  is  removed :  "  The 
Son  of  Man  came  to  give  his  life  to  ransom 
many";  that  is,  to  deliver  them  from  the  evils  of 
ignorance,  error,  and  sin.  —  "  Whatever,"  said  our 
Saviour  to  St.  Peter,  "  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth 
will  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatever  thou  shalt 
loose  on  earth  will  be  loosed  in  heaven."  j-  This 
passage  and  another  corresponding  to  it,  in  which 
the  same  authority  is  extended  to  the  Apostles 
generally,  J  have  been  perverted  to  the  worst  pur- 
poses. The  figure  in  which  our  Saviour  expressed 
his  meaning  is  not  found  in  modern  languages, 
but  was  familiar  to  the  Jews.  "To  bind"  with 
them  signified  "to  forbid,"  and  "to  loose"  signi- 
fied "to  permit" ;§  and  the  meaning  of  Christ 
was,  "  I  appoint  you  to  preach  my  religion,  by 
which  what  is  forbidden  is  forbidden  by  God, 
and  what  is  permitted  is  permitted  by  God." 
As  its  minister,  you  will  speak  in  his  name  and 
with  his  authority,  forbidding  or  permitting  on 

*  Matthew  xx.  28.        t  Matthew  xvi.  19.       \  Matthew  xviii.  1& 
{  See  Wetstein's  note  on  Matthew  xvi.  19 


l"46 


PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION. 


earth  what  is  forbidden  or  permitted  in  heaven. 
—  It  is  further  to  be  remarked,  that,  in  some 
cases  where  there  is  this  want  of  correspondence 
between  languages,  the  verbal  rendering  of  a  pas- 
sage may  be  unintelligible,  and  even  offensive;  as 
in  the  address  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  thus 
translated  in  the  Common  Version  :  "  Ye  are  not 
straitened  in  us,  but  ye  are  straitened  in  your 
own  bowels."*  The  meaning  of  St.  Paul,  which  a 
reader  of  those  words  might  hardly  conjecture,  is 
this  :  "  You  do  not  suffer  from  any  deficiency  in  us, 
out  you  are  deficient  in  your  own  affections."  — 
Sometimes  a  verbal  rendering  gives  a  sense  al- 
together false :  "  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren, 
that  ye  all  speak  the  same  thing."  f  So  St. 
Paul  is  represented  as  addressing  the  Corinthians 
in  the  Common  Version.  But  "  to  speak  the 
same  thing"  was  a  phrase  used  in  Greek  in  a 
sense  unknown  in  English,  to  denote  "  agreeing 
together";  and  the  exhortation  in  fact  was,  that 
they  should  "  all  agree  together."  —  These  ex- 
amples, few  as  they  are,  may  serve  to  illustrate 
the  mistakes  to  which  we  are  exposed  from  the 
want  of  analogy  between  languages  ;  and  to  show 
that  the  true  meaning  of  a  passage  may  be  very 
different  from  the  sense  which,  without  further  in- 

*  2  Cor.  vi.  12.  —  To  one  acquainted  with  the  French  language, 
he  character  of  the  rendering  in  the  Common  Version  may  be  illus- 
.rated.  by  supposing  a  verbal  translation  of  the  following  account  of 
i  tragic  actress  :  "Elle  sait  emouvoir  et  toucher  ;  jamais  comedienne 
I'eut  plus  d'entrailles  " 

t  1  Cor.  i.  10 


PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION.  147 

quiry,  we  should  receive  from  a  verbal  rendering 
of  it  into  English.  A  verbal  rendering  of  an  an- 
cient author  must  be  often  false,  ambiguous,  o 
unintelligible,  and  when  not  exposed  to  grave: 
charges,  will  commonly  fail  in  preserving  the  fuL 
significancy,  the  spirit  and  character,  of  the  origi- 
nal. 

Those  which  have  been  mentioned  are  some  of 
the  principal  causes  of  the  ambiguity  of  language ; 
or,  as  we  may  say  in  other  terms,  they  are  some  of 
the  principal  modes  in  which  this  ambiguity  mani- 
fests itself.  But  a  fall  analysis  of  the  subject,  ac- 
companied by  proper  examples,  would  fill  many 
pages.  From  what  has  been  already  said,  the 
truth  of  the  propositions  maintained  will,  I  think, 
appear,  at  least  sufficiently  for  our  present  pur- 
pose. 

It  is,  then,  to  the  intrinsic  ambiguity  of  lan- 
guage, that  the  art  of  interpretation  owes  its  ori- 
gin. If  words  and  sentences  were  capable  of  ex- 
pressing but  a  single  meaning,  no  art  would  be 
required  in  their  interpretation.  It  would  be,  as  a 
late  writer,*  thoroughly  ignorant  of  the  subject, 
supposes,  a  work  to  be  performed  merely  with 
the  assistance  of  a  lexicon  and  grammar.  The 
object  of  the  art  of  interpretation  is  to  enable  us 
to  solve  the  difficulties  presented  by  the  intrinsic 
ambiguity  of  language.  It  first  teaches  us  to 
perceive  the  different  meanings  which  any  sen- 
tence may  be  used  to  express,  as  the  different 

*  Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers.     See  the  conclusion  of  the  article  Chri* 
tianity,  in  the  Edinburgh  Encyclopaedia. 
17" 


148  PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION. 

words  of  which  it  is  composed  are  taken  respec- 
tively in  one  sense  or  another;  as  it  is  understood 
literally,  or  figuratively;  strictly  and  to  the  letter, 
or  popularly  and  in  a  modified  sense ;  as  the  lan- 
guage of  emotion,  or  as  a  calm  and  unimpassioned 
expression  of  thoughts  and  sentiments ;  as  the  lan- 
guage of  one  age  or  nation,  or  that  of  another ; 
and  it  then  teaches  us  (which  is  its  ultimate  pur- 
pose) to  distinguish,  among  possible  meanings,  the 
actual  meaning  of  the  sentence,  or  that  meaning 
which,  in  the  particular  case  we  are  considering, 
was  intended  by  the  author.  And  in  what  man- 
ner does  it  enable  us  to  do  this  ?  Here,  again, 
a  full  and  particular  answer  to  this  question  is 
not  to  be  comprised  in  the  compass  of  a  few 
pages.  The  general  answer  is,  that  it  enables 
us  to  do  this  by  directing  our  attention  to  all 
those  considerations  which  render  it  probable  that 
one  meaning1  was  intended  by  the  writer  rather 
4,han  another. 

Some  of  these  considerations  are,  the  character 
of  the  writer,  his  habits  of  thinking  and  feeling,  his 
common  style  of  expression,  and  that  of  his  age  or 
nation,  his  settled  opinions  and  belief,  the  extent 
of  his  knowledge,  the  general  state  of  things  dur- 
ing the  time  in  which  he  lived,  the  particular  local 
and  temporary  circumstances  present  to  his  min.l 
while  writing,  the  character  and  condition  of  those 
for  whom  he  wrote,  the  opinions  of  others  to 
which  he  had  reference,  the  connection  of  the  sen- 
tence, or  the  train  of  thought  by  which  it  is  pre- 
ceded and  followed,  and,  finally,  the  manner  in 


PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION.  149 

which  he  was  understood  by  those  for  whom  he 
wrote,  —  a  consideration,  the  importance  of  which 
varies  with  circumstances.  The  considerations  to 
be  attended  to  by  an  interpreter  are  here  reduced 
to  their  elements.  I  cannot  dwell  long  enough 
upon  the  subject,  to  point  out  all  the  different 
forms  and  combinations  in  which  they  may  ap- 
pear. But  where  the  words  which  compose  a  sen- 
tence are  such,  that  the  sentence  may  be  used  to 
express  more  than  one  meaning,  its  true  meaning 
is  to  be  determined  SOLELY  by  a  reference  to  EX- 
TRINSIC CONSIDERATIONS,  such  as  have  been  stated. 
In  the  case  supposed  (a  case  of  very  frequent  oc- 
currence), all  that  we  can  learn  from  the  mere 
words  of  the  sentence  is  the  different  meanings 
which  the  sentence  is  capable  of  expressing.  It  is 
obvious  that  the  words,  considered  in  themselves, 
can  afford  no  assistance  in  determining  which  of 
those  different  meanings  was  that  intended  by  the 
author.  This  problem  is  to  be  solved  solely  by  a 
process  of  reasoning,  founded  upon  such  considera- 
tions as  have  been  stated. 

I  will  illustrate  this  account  of  the  principles  of 
interpretation  by  an  example  of  their  application. 

Of  MILTON,  Dr.  Johnson  says,  that 

"  He  had  considered  creation  in  its  whole  extent, 
and  his  descriptions  are  therefore  learned."  * 

"But  he  could  not  be  always  in  other  worlds,  he 
must  sometimes  return  to  earth,  and  talk  of  things 
visible  and  known."  f 

•  [Life  of  Milton.    Works,  IX.  167.]  t  [Ibid.,  p.  168.] 


150  PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION. 

Addison  tells  us,  that  "  he  knew  all  the  arts  of 
affecting  the  mind."  * 

Bentley,  in  the  Preface  to  his  edition  of  the  Par- 
adise Lost,  speaks  of  him  thus  :  — 

"  He  could  spatiate  at  large  through  the  com- 
pass of  the  whole  universe,  and  through  all  heaven 
beyond  it;  could  survey  all  periods  of  time  from 
before  the  creation  to  the  consummation  of  all 
thing*." 

"  Milton's  strong  pinion  now  not  heaven  can 
bound,"  are  the  words  of  Pope.f 

"  He  passed,"  says  Gray,  "  the  flaming  bounds 
of  place  and  time,  and  saw  the  living  throne"  of 
God.$ 

In  the  age  subsequent  to  his  own,  "  he  con- 
tinued," says  Aikin,  "  to  stand  alone,  an  insulated 
form  of  unrivalled  greatness,"  § 

Why  do  we  not  understand  all  this  language 
strictly  and  to  the  letter?  Why,  without  a  mo- 
ment's hesitation,  do  we  put  upon  the  expressions 
of  all  these  different  authors  a  sense  so  very  re- 
mote from  that  which  their  words  are  adapted  to 
convey,  when  viewed  independently  of  any  extrin- 
sic consideration  by  which  they  may  be  explained? 
The  answer  is,  because  we  are  satisfied  (no  matter 
how)  that  all  these  writers  believed  Milton  to  be  a 
man,  and  one  not  endued  with  supernatural  pow- 
ers. This  consideration  determines  us  at  once  to 


*  [Spectator,  No  333.] 

t  [Imitations  of  Horace,  Book  II.  Ep.  I.  99.] 

J  [Ode  on  the  Progress  of  Poesy,  III.  2.] 

§  [Letters  to  a  Young  Lady  on  English  Poetry,  Letter  XL] 


PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION.  151 

regard  their  language  as  figurative,  or  as  requiring 
very  great  limitation  of  its  verbal  meaning. 

Let  us  attend  to  another  example  of  the  applica- 
tion of  those  principles  which  have  been  laid  down. 
Our  Saviour  says,  "  Whoever  lives  and  has  faith 
in  me  will  never  die";*  and  similar  declarations, 
as  every  one  must  remember,  were  often  repeated 
by  him.  I  recollect  to  have  met  with  a  passage  in 
an  infidel  writer,  in  which  it  was  maintained  that 
these  declarations  were  to  be  understood  literally ; 
and  that  Christ  meant  to  assure  his  disciples  that 
they  should  not  suffer  the  common  lot  of  man. 
Why  do  we  not  understand  them  literally  ?  Be- 
cause we  are  satisfied  that  our  Saviour's  character 
was  such  that  he  would  not  predict  a  falsehood. 
An  infidel,  likewise,  might  easily  satisfy  himself 
that  his  character  was  such  that  he  would  not  pre- 
dict what  the  next  day's  experience  might  prove  to 
be  a  falsehood. 

I  will  give  one  more  example :  "  Unless  you  eat 
the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his  blood, 
you  have  not  life  within  you."f  He  who  will  turn 
to  the  context  of  the  passage  may  see  that  this 
declaration  is  repeated  and  insisted  upon  by  our 
Saviour,  in  a  variety  of  phrases  and  in  different 
relations.  The  Roman  Catholics  understand  this 
passage,  when  viewed  in  connection  with  the 
words  used  in  instituting  our  Lord's  supper,  as  a 
decisive  argument  for  the  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation.  If  either  doctrine  were  capable  of  proof 

*  John  xi.  26.  t  John  vi.  53. 


152  PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION. 

I  should  certainly  think  that  there  was  no  passage 
in  Scripture  which  went  so  far  to  prove  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  as  this  does  to  prove  the  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation.  Why,  then,  do  we  not 
understand  the  words  in  the  sense  of  the  Roman 
Catholics  ?  Why  do  we  suppose  a  figure  so  bold, 
and  to  our  ears  so  harsh,  as  we  are  compelled  to 
suppose,  if  we  do  not  understand  them  literally  ? 
Solely  because  we  have  such  notions  of  the  char- 
acter and  doctrines  of  our  Saviour,  that  we  are 
satisfied  that  he  would  not  teach  anything  irra- 
tional or  absurd ;  and  that  the  declaration  in  ques- 
tion would  be  very  irrational,  if  understood  literally 
without  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation ;  and  altogether  absurd,  if  supposed  to  im- 
ply the  truth  of  this  doctrine.  It  is  upon  the  same 
principle  that  we  interpret  a  very  large  proportion 
of  all  the  figurative  language  which  we  meet  with. 
We  at  once  reject  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words, 
and  understand  them  as  figurative,  because,  if  we 
did  not  do  this,  they  would  convey  some  meaning 
which  contradicts  common  sense ;  and  it  would 
be  inconsistent  with  our  notions  of  the  writer,  to 
suppose  him  to  intend  such  a  meaning.  But  this 
principle,  which  is  adopted  unconsciously  in  the 
interpretation  of  all  other  writings,  has  been  gross- 
ly disregarded  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture. 
If  one  should  interpret  any  other  writings  (except 
those  in  the  exact  sciences)  in  the  same  manner  in 
which  the  Scriptures  have  been  explained,  he  might 
find  as  many  absurdities  in  the  former  as  there  are 
pretended  mysteries  in  the  latter. 


PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION.  153 

Upon  the  principle  just  stated,  we  may  reject 
the  literal  meaning  of  a  passage,  when  we  cannot 
pronounce  with  confidence  what  is  its  true  mean- 
ing. The  words  of  our  Saviour  just  quoted  are 
an  example  in  point.  One  may  be  fully  justified 
in  rejecting  their  literal  meaning,  who  is  wholly 
unable  to  determine  their  true  meaning.  To  do 
this  is  certainly  ?io  easy  matter.  Similar  difficul- 
ties, that  is,  passages  about  the  true  meaning  of 
which  we  can  feel  no  confidence,  though  we  may 
confidently  reject  some  particular  meaning  which 
the  words  will  bear,  are  to  be  found  in'  all  other 
ancient  writings  as  well  as  the  Scriptures. 

If  the  facts  and  principles  respecting  interpreta- 
tion which  have  been  stated  are  correct,  any  one 
who  will  examine  what  has  been  written  concern- 
ing this  subject  may  perceive  how  little  it  has 
been  understood  by  a  large  proportion  of  those 
who  have  undertaken  to  lay  down  rules  of  exposi- 
tion, and  how  much  it  has  been  involved  in  ob- 
scurity and  error.  There  are  many  writers  who 
appear,  neither  to  have  had  any  distinct  conception 
of  the  truth,  that  sentences  are  continually  occur- 
ring which  may  severally  express  very  different 
senses  when  we  attend  only  to  the  words  of  which 
they  are  composed,  nor,  of  consequence,  any  just 
notions  of  the  manner  in  which  the  actual  mean- 
ing of  such  sentences  is  to  be  determined.  Yet 
it  is  to  such  sentences  that  the  art  of  interpre- 
tation is  to  be  applied ;  and  its  purpose  is,  to 
teach  us  in  what  manner  their  ambiguity  may 
be  resolved. 


J51  PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION. 

WE  are  now,  then,  prepared  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion formerly  proposed.  Certain  passages  are  ad- 
duced by  Trinitarians  in  support  of  their  opinions. 
We  do  not  deny  that  Ihere  are  expressions  in  some 
of  these  passages,  which,  the  words  alone  being 
regarded,  will  bear  a  Trinitarian  sense.  How  is  it 
to  be  ascertained  whether  this  sense,  or  some  other, 
was  intended  by  the  writer  ? 

Now  this  is  a  question  which,  as  we  have  shown, 
is  to  be  determined  solely  by  extrinsic  considera- 
tions ;  and  all  those  considerations  that  have  been 
brought  into  view  in  the  former  part  of  this  discus- 
sion bear  directly  upon  the  point  at  issue.  My 
purpose  has  been  to  prove  that  the  Trinitarian  doc- 
trines were  not  taught  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 
If  this  has  been  proved,  it  has  been  proved  that 
they  were  not  taught  by  them  in  any  particular 
passage.  All  the  considerations  that  have  been 
brought  forward  apply  directly  to  the  interpreta- 
tion of  any  words  that  may  be  adduced;  and  if 
these  considerations  are  decisive,  then  it  is  certain 
that  the  Trinitarian  exposition  of  every  passage  of 
the  New  Testament  must  be  false.  Their  force  can 
be  avoided  but  in  one  way ;  not  by  proving,  posi- 
tively, that  certain  words  will  bear  a  Trinitarian 
meaning, — that  is  conceded;  but  by  proving,  nega- 
tively, that  it  is  impossible  these  words  should  be 
used  in  any  other  than  a  Trinitarian  meaning, — 
that  they  admit  of  but  one  sense,  which,  under  all 
circumstances,  they  must  be  intended  to  express. 
But  this  no  man  of  common  information  will  main- 
tain. If,  then,  there  be  not  some  gross  error  in  the 


PRINCIPLES    OF    INTERPRETATION.  155 

preceding  reasonings,  the  controversy  respecting 
the  Trinitarian  exposition  of  those  passages  is  de- 
cided. Whatever  may  be  their  true  sense,  the 
Trinitarian  exposition  must  be  false. 

But  I  will  now  recur  to  the  essential  character 
of  the  Trinitarian  doctrines,  for  the  purpose  of 
showing,  that,  though  there  are  words  in  the  New 
Testament  which,  abstractly  considered,  will  bear 
some  one  or  other  Trinitarian  sense,  yet  that  this 
sense  can  be  ascribed  to  them  only  in  violation  of 
a  fundamental  principle  of  interpretation. 


SECTION   VIII. 

FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  INTERPRETATION  VIOLATED 
BY  TRINITARIAN  EXPOSITORS.  —  NO  PROPOSITION  CAN  BE 
INCOMPREHENSIBLE,  IN  ITSELF  CONSIDERED,  FROM  THE 
NATURE  OF  THE  IDEAS  EXPRESSED  BY  IT. 

THE  principle  of  interpretation  to  which  I  refer 
is  so  constantly  present  to  the  mind  of  every  one, 
and  is  acted  upon  so  unconsciously  in  reading  all 
other  books  but  the  Scriptures,  that,  except  in  refer- 
ence to  them,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  announce 
it  or  advert  to  it.  It  has  been  already  mentioned. 
In  many  cases,  as  I  have  said,  we  at  once  reject 
the  literal  meaning  of  words,  and  understand  them 
as  figurative,  because  if  we  did  not  do  this  they 
would  convey  some  meaning  which  contradicts 
common  sense  ;  and  it  would  be  inconsistent  with 
our  notions  of  the  writer  to  suppose  him  to  intend 
such  a  meaning.  Men's  minds  being  constituted 
alike,  so  that,  when  a  subject  is  clearly  understood, 
what  appears  an  absurdity  to  one  will  appear  an 
absurdity  to  another,  we  do  not  ascribe  an  absurd 
meaning  to  the  language  of  any  writer,  except 
upon  the  special  consideration  of  some  well-known 
peculiarity  of  belief,  or  defect  or  cloudiness  of  in- 
tellect. Yet  a  great  part  of  all  language  diverted 
in  any  way  from  its  literal  sense  will  bear  an  ab- 


ERROR  CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.        157 

surd  meaning,  that  is,  admits  of  being  so  inter- 
preted when  the  words  alone  are  regarded. 

We  may  take  as  instances  of  this  the  examples 
of  the  use  of  language  quoted  in  the  preceding  sec- 
tion. But  I  will  produce  a  few  more  passages, 
from  which  it  may  appear  to  those  not  familiar 
with  the  subject  how  absurd  or  false  the  literal 
meaning  of  language  often  is,  and  how  instantly 
and  unconsciously  it  is  rejected  upon  the  principle 
I  have  stated.  I  give  them  without  comment,  for 
none  is  required.  My  purpose  is  merely  to  call 
attention  to  a  fact  respecting  the  use  of  language, 
which,  though  frequently  overlooked,  must  be  ac- 
knowledged as  soon  as  it  is  pointed  out. 

Speaking  of  the  conciliatory  measures  toward 
the  American  colonies  adopted  by  the  Rocking- 
ham  administration  just  before  its  dissolution,  Mr. 
Burke  says :  "  The  question  of  the  repeal  [of  the 
Stamp  Act]  was  brought  on  by  ministry  in  the 
committee  of  this  house,  in  the  very  instant  when 
it  was  known  that  more  than  one  court  negotia- 
tion was  carrying  on  with  the  heads  of  the  opposi- 
tion. Everything  upon  every  side  was  full  of 
traps  and  mines.  Earth  below  shook ;  heaven 
above  menaced."* 

Speaking  of  the  rapid  increase  of  numbers  in 
these  colonies,  he  says :  "  Such  is  the  strength 
with  which  population  shoots  in  that  part  of  the 
world,  that,  state  the  number  as  high  as  we  will, 
whilst  the  dispute  continues,  the  exaggeiation 

*  [Speech  on  American  Taxation.] 


158  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

ends.  Whilst  we  are  discussing  any  given  mag- 
nitude, they  are  grown  to  it."* 

"  A  strong  and  habitually  indulged  imagina- 
tion," says  Foster,  "  has  incantations  to  dissolve 
the  rigid  laws  of  time  and  distance,  and  to  place 
a  man  in  something  so  like  the  presence  of  his 
object,  that  he  seems  half  to  possess  it;  and  it  is 
hard,  while  occupying  the  verge  of  paradise,  to  be 
flung  far  back  in  order  to  find  or  make  a  path  to 
it,  with  the  slow  and  toilsome  steps  of  reality."  f 

Remarking  upon  the  responsibility  of  writers  of 
fictitious  narratives,  in  regard  to  the  characters 
they  delineate,  the  same  author  has  the  following 
passage :  "  They  create  a  new  person ;  and  m 
sending  him  into  society,  they  can  choose  whethei 
his  example  shall  tend  to  improve  or  pervert  the- 
minds  that  will  be  compelled  to  admire  him."  J 

I  will  quote  a  few  more  sentences,  from  Young.' 

"  The  death-bed  of  the  just .... 
Is  it  his  death-bed  ?    No ;  it  is  his  shrine : 
Behold  him  there  just  rising  to  a  god." 

u  Shall  we  this  moment  gaze  on  God  in  man  ; 
The  next,  lose  man  for  ever  in  the  dust?" 

"  A  Christian  dwells,  like  Uriel,  in  the  sun." 

Speaking  of  the  beauty  of  the  material  world,  as 
relative  to  our  perceptions,  and  existing  only  so  far 
as  it  is  perceived  by  the  eye  of  man :  — 

*  [Speech  on  Conciliation  with  America.] 

t  [Essay  on  the  Application  of  the  Epithet  Romantic,  Letter  III.] 
$  [On  the  Aversion  of  Men  of  Taste  to  Evangelical  Religion, 
Utter  VIII.] 
4  [Night  Thoughts,  II.  629  ;  VII.  222,  1354 ;  VL'429.] 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  159 

"  But  for  the  magic  organ's  powerful  charm, 
Earth  were  a  rude,  uncolored  chaos  still.  .  .  . 
Ours  is  the  cloth,  the  pencil,  and  the  paint, 
Which  Nature's  admirable  picture  draws.  .  . 
Like  Milton's  Eve,  when  gazing  on  the  lake, 
Man  makes  the  matchless  image  man  admires. 
Say  then,  shall  man,  his  thoughts  all  sent  abroad,  . .      . 
His  admiration  waste  on  objects  round, 
When  Heaven  makes  him  the  soul  of  all  he  sees  ? " 

Any  person  in  his  common  reading  may  find 
numberless  similar  passages,  of  which  we  reject 
without  hesitation  the  verbal  meaning,  simply  be- 
cause it  is  absurd  or  evidently  false.  But  this 
principle  has  not  been  regarded  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture.  The  believer  in  transubstantia- 
tion  contends  that  we  are  to  understand  verbally 
the  declaration  :  "  Unless  you  eat  the  flesh  of  the 
Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  you  have  not 
life  within  you."*  The  sect  of  the  Antinomians 
would  have  us  take  to  the  letter  the  words  of  St. 
Paul,  as  rendered  in  the  Common  Version :  "  But 
to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him 
that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for 
righteousness."  f  And  of  the  believers  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Atonement,  some  contend,  that,  when  the 
Apostle  speaks  of  the  church  as  being  "  purchased 
by  the  blood  of  Christ,"  or,  as  they  would  have  it 
read,  "by  the  blood  of  God,"  we  are  to  regard  the 
blood  of  the  Son  as  being  paid,  as  it  were,  to  the 
Father  to  deliver  us  from  his  wrath.  All  the  errors 
connected  with  Christianity  have  appealed  for  sup- 
port to  such  verbal  misinterpretations  of  particular 

*  [John  vi.  53.]  t  [Romans  iv.  5.] 


160  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

passages.  Hence  it  has  been  said,  that  anything 
may  be  proved  from  the  Scriptures.  And  it  is 
true,  that,  if  we  proceed  in  so  erroneous  a  method, 
and  neglect  every  fact  and  principle  which  ought 
to  be  attended  to  in  the  interpretation  of  language, 
there  is  no  meaning  too  false,  too  absurd>  or  too 
ridiculous,  to  be  educed  from  the  words  of  Scrip- 
ture, or,  equally,  from  those  of  any  popular  writ- 
ing. An  experiment  may  be  made  upon  the  pas- 
sages just  quoted  in  the  preceding  paragraphs.* 

*  "  Quas  lex,  quod  senatus-consultum,  quod  magistrates  edictum, 
quod  fcedus,  aut  pactio,  quod  (ut  ad  privatas  res  redeam)  testamen- 
tum,  quse  judicia,  aut  stipulationes,  aut  pacti  et  convent!  formula  non 
infirmari,  aut  convelli  potest,  si  ad  verba  rem  deflectere  velimus  ;  con 
silium  autem  eorum,  qui  scripserunt,  et  rationem,  et  auctoritatem 
relinquamus  ?  Sermo  mehercule  et  familiaris  et  quotidianus  non 
coharehit,  si  verba  inter  nos  aucupabimur.  Denique  imperium  do- 
mesticum  nullum  erit,  si  servulis  hoc  nostris  concesserimus,  ut  ad 
verba  nobis  obediant ;  non  ad  id,  quod  ex  verbis  intelligi  possit,  ob- 
temperent." 

"  What  law,  what  decree  of  the  Senate,  what  ordinance  of  a  magis- 
trate, what  treaty  or  convention,  or,  to  return  to  private  concerns, 
what  testament,  what  judicial  decision,  what  stipulation,  what  form 
of  agreement,  may  not  be  invalidated  or  annulled,  if  we  insist  on 
bending  the  meaning  to  the  words,  and  neglect  the  intent,  purport, 
and  will  of  the  writer?  Truly,  our  familiar  and  every-day  discourse 
would  have  little  coherence,  if  we  lay  in  wait  for  each  other's  words. 
There  would  be  no  domestic  government,  if  we  allowed  our  slaves  to 
obey  our  commands  in  their  verbal  meaning,  and  not  in  that  sense  in 
which  the  words  are  to  be  understood." 

Cicero,  Orat.  pro  A.  Csecinft,  $  18. 

A  late  writer,  however,  to  whom  I  have  before  adverted,  p.  147,  Dr. 
Chalmers  (in  the  article  there  mentioned),  contends  earnestly  that 
the  verbal  method  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures  is  the  true  method. 
"  The  examination  of  the  Scriptures,"  he  says,  "  is  a  pure  work  of 
grammatical  analysis.  It  is  an  unmixed  question  of  language." 
"  We  admit  of  no  other  instrument  than  the  vocabulary  and  the  lexi- 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  161 

It  is  in  the  verbal  manner  spoken  of,  that  the 
passages  brought  to  prove  the  Trinitarian  doctrines 
have  been  interpreted.  But  in  order  to  withdraw 
the  propositions  thus  resulting,  from  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  reason,  they  have  been  called  incomprehen- 
sible mysteries.  A  certain  obscurity  has  thus  been 
thrown  over  the  subject,  by  which  some  minds  are 
perplexed.  I  will  now,  therefore,  attempt  to  show, 
what,  I  think,  may  be  shown  clearly,  that  no  prop- 
osition can  be  incomprehensible  from  the  nature  of 

con."  i;The  mind  and  meaning  of  the  author  who  is  translated  is 
purely  a  question  of  language,  and  should  be  decided  upon  no  other 
principles  than  those  of  grammar  or  philology."  But  this  principle 
"  has  been  most  glaringly  departed  from  in  the  case  of  the  Bible ; 

the  meaning  of  its  author,  instead  of  being  made  singly  and 

entirely  a  question  of  grammar,  has  been  made  a  question  of  meta- 
physics, or  a  question  of  sentiment : instead  of  the  argument 

resorted  to  being,  Such  must  be  the  rendering,  from  the  structure 
of  language,  and  the  import  and  significancy  of  its  phrases  ;  it  has 
been,  Such  must  be  the  rendering,  from  the  analogy  of  the  faith,  the 
reason  of  the  thing,  the  character  of  the  Divine  mind,  and  the  wis- 
dom of  all  his  dispensations."  There  are  Christians  "who  in  addi- 
tion to  the  word  of  God  talk  also  of  the  reason  of  the  thing."  "  Could 
we  only  dismiss  the  uncertain  fancies  of  a  daring  and  presumptuous 
theology,  sit  down  like  a  school-boy  to  his  task,  and  look  upon  the 
study  of  divinity  as  a  mere  work  of  translation,  then  we  would  ex- 
pect the  same  unanimity  among  Christians,  that  we  meet  with  among 
scholars  and  literati  about  the  system  of  Epicurus,  or  philosophy  of 
Aristotle." 

The  illustration  is  particularly  unhappy,  at  least  so  far  as  regards 
the  philosophy  of  Aristotle.  But  I  do  not  insist  on  this,  nor  on  the 
looseness  and  uncertainty  of  some  of  the  language  which  I  have 
quoted.  The  main  ideas  are  sufficiently  apparent.  We  are  to  come 
to  the  study  of  the  Scriptures  merely  with  our  grammar  and  lexicon. 
Having  done  so,  let  us  consider  how  we  shall  proceed.  Our  lexicon 
will  exhibit  to  us  ten  or  twenty  different  meanings,  perhaps,  of  some 
of  the  most  important  words  in  a  sentence.  Our  grammar,  beside 


162  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

the  ideas  expressed ;  that  there  can  be  no  meaning 
conveyed  in  words,  which  is  not  perfectly  intelligi- 
ble, I  do  not  say  by  this  or  that  individual,  but  by 
the  human  understanding. 

Words  are  only  human  instruments  for  the  ex- 
pression of  human  ideas ;  and  it  is  impossible 
that  they  should  express  anything  else.  The 
meaning  of  words  is  that  idea  or  aggregate  of 
ideas  which  men  have  associated  with  certain 

teaching  us  the  relations  of  words  to  each  other,  will  discover  to  us 
the  various  and  often  numerous  modifications  of  meaning,  which 
some  alteration  in  the  form  of  a  word  renders  it  capable  of  express- 
ing. If  it  happen  to  have  an  appendix  treating  of  the  rhetorical 
figures,  we  may  also  learn  something  from  it  concerning  the  many 
changes  of  signification  to  which  words  are  subjected  according  to 
established  modes  of  speech ;  though  our  knowledge,  if  derived 
merely  from  this  source,  may  not  be  extensive.  But  as  yet  we 
are  furnished  only  with  objects  of  choice  among  a  variety  of  mean- 
ings, without  anything  to  decide  us  how  to  choose.  We  have  only 
learned,  and  that  but  very  imperfectly,  what  the  words  may  signify; 
our  business  is  to  learn  what  they  do  signify.  Take  a  sentence, 
which  in  different  relations  may  be  used  to  express  different  mean- 
ings with  equal  propriety,  —  and  such  sentences  are  constantly  oc- 
curring, —  what  assistance  will  our  grammar  or  lexicon  afford,  to 
determine  in  any  particular  case  its  actual  meaning  ?  Certainly 
none  at  all. 

But  in  the  process  of  interpretation,  we  are  to  have  recourse  to  no 
other  instruments.  We  are  expressly  enjoined,  for  instance,  to  ex- 
clude all  consideration  of  the  reason  of  the  thing.  By  this  must  be 
meant,  that  we  are  not  to  consider  what  may  reasonably  be  said 
upon  any  subject;  or,  in  other  words,  what  a  reasonable  man,  with 
no  false  opinions,  would  say  concerning  it.  Let  us  try,  then,  how  we 
shall  succeed  in  interpreting  Scripture,  after  having  excluded  this 
and  every  other  extrinsic  consideration.  St.  Luke  ascribes  these 
words  to  our  Saviour:  "  Blessed  arc  you  poor,  for  yours  is  the  king- 
dom of  God."  Shall  we  exclude  all  consideration  of  the  reason  of 
the  thing  (»nd,  taking  the  word  poor  in  its  most  common  and  obvious 
sense,  understand  our  Saviour  as  asserting  for  a  universal  truth,  that 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  163 

sounds  or  letters.  They  have  no  other  meaning 
than  what  is  given  them  by  men ;  and  this  mean- 
ing must  be  always  such  as  the  human  under- 
standing is  capable  of  conceiving;  for  we  can 
associate  with  sounds  or  letters  no  idea  or  ag- 
gregate of  ideas  which  we  have  not.  Ideas, 
therefore,  with  which  the  human  understanding 
is  conversant,  are  all  that  can  be  expressed  by 
words.  If  an  angel  have  faculties  of  a  different 

all  men  destitute  of  property  arc  blessed  ?  But  these  words,  it  will 
be  said,  arc  explained  by  the  parallel  passage  in  St.  Matthew.  Ex- 
plained by  a  parallel  passage !  We  are,  then,  very  soon  obliged  to 
have  recourse  to  something  beside  our  grammar  and  lexicon.  But 
how  are  they  explained  by  the  passage  in  St.  Matthew  ?  "Blessed 
are  the  poor  in  spirit."  Without  taking  any  extrinsic  consideration 
into  view,  but  confining  ourselves  to  the  mere  words  before  us,  in 
which  of  the  many  meanings  of  the  word  fpirit  shall  we  here  under- 
stand it?  Shall  we  receive  it  in  a  sense  which  occurs  repeatedly 
in  the  New  Testament,  according  to  which  it  denotes  the  temper 
and  virtues  of  a  Christian,  and  understand  the  words  as  meaning: 
"  Blessed  arc  they  who  are  poor  in  the  temper  and  virtues  of  a  Chris- 
tian "?  But  leaving  these  difficult  passages,  he  who  chooses  to  put 
out  of  view  the  reason  of  the  thing,  and  all  those  other  circumstances 
which  ought  to  determine  our  judgment,  may  proceed  with  his  gram- 
mar and  lexicon  to  the  next  beatitude  of  our  Saviour,  and  then  to  the 
next ;  and  then  he  may  open  at  random  upon  any  passage  of  the 
New  Testament,  till  he  has  satisfied  himself  respecting  the  practica- 
bility of  his  method. 

If  the  opinions  on  which  I  have  remarked  were  the  extravagances 
of  an  individual  writer  alone,  so  long  a  notice  of  them  would  hardly 
>e  justifiable.  But  the  assertions,  I  cannot  say  the  arguments,  of 
Dr.  Chalmers,  arc  intended  to  maintain  a  system  of  interpretation  in 
vhich  the  false  doctrines  that  have  been  connected  with  Christianity 
iave  found  their  main  support.  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that 
he  verbal  method  of  interpretation  is,  in  fact,  principally  confined  to 
•assages  brought  in  proof  of  those  doctrines,  and  is  abandoned  in  re- 
gard to  other  portions  of  Scripture,  to  which  its  application  would 
produce  some  unsanctioned  error  or  absurdity. 


164  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

nature  from  those  which  we  possess,  he  can  make 
no  use  of  our  language  to  convey  to  our  minds 
the  results  of  their  exercise.  If  any  being  have 
more  senses  than  we  have,  he  can  find  no  words 
of  ours  to  express  to  us  his  new  perceptions.  It 
being  impossible,  therefore,  that  words  should  be 
employed  to  denote  anything  but  human  ideas  ; 
whenever  they  have  a  meaning,  this  meaning, 
thougjh  liable  to  be  mistaken,  must  in  its  own 
nature  be  capable  of  being  fully  understood. 

To  talk  of  an  incomprehensible  meaning,  if  we 
use  the  word  "  incomprehensible  "  in  a  strict  sense, 
is  to  employ  terms  which  in  themselves  express  an 
absurdity.  It  is  the  same  sort  of  language,  as  if 
we  were  to  speak  of  an  invisible  illumination. 
The  meaning  of  a  sentence  is  the  ideas  which  it 
is  adapted  to  convey  to  the  mind  of  him  who  reads 
or  hears  it.  But  if  it  be  capable  of  conveying  any 
ideas,  that  is,  if  it  have  any  meaning,  it  is  merely 
stating  the  same  fact  in  other  terms,  to  say  that 
those  ideas  are  capable  of  being  received  and 
understood. 

No  one,  indeed,  will  deny,  that  there  are  many 
truths  incomprehensible  by  us;  which  are  above 
reason,  or,  in  other  words,  which  are  wholly  out 
of  the  grasp  of  our  present  faculties.  But  these 
truths  cannot  be  expressed  in  human  language. 
Nor,  while  our  faculties  remain  what  they  are, 
can  they  be  in  any  way  revealed  to  us.  To  re- 
veal is  to  make  known.  But  what  cannot  be  com- 
prehended cannot  be  made  known,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  revealed. 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  165 

This  very  plain  subject  has  been  obscured  by  a 
oose  and  ambiguous  use  of  language.  It  is  said, 
that  we  believe  truths  which  we  do  not  com- 
prehend ;  —  that  we  believe  that  the  grass  grows  ; 
but  do  not  know  how  it  grows;  —  that  we  believe 
that  some  things  are  infinite ;  but  that  we  do  not 
comprehend  infinity;  —  that  we  believe  that  God 
knows  all  things;  but  that  we  cannot  form  a 
conception  of  omniscience.  Let  us  examine  these 
propositions.  The  grass  grows :  do  we  not  know 
what  we  mean  when  we  use  these  words?  It 
is  as  intelligible  a  proposition  as  can  be  stated. 
We  affirm,  and  we  intend  nothing  more  than  to 
affirm,  that  certain  well-known,  sensible  phenom- 
ena take  place.  It  is  true  that  we  do  not  know 
how  it  grows,  that  is  to  say,  we  do  not  know 
the  proximate  causes  of  its  growth ;  and  it  is 
equally  true,  that  we  affirm  nothing  about  those 
causes  in  the  proposition  stated.  Our  affirmation 
does  not  extend  beyond  our  knowledge.  The  fact 
that  there  are  many  phenomena  of  which  we  can- 
not assign  the  causes,  does  not  tend  to  prove  that, 
when  we  affirm  those  phenomena  to  exist,  we  utter 
incomprehensible  propositions. 

But  we  say  of  many  things,  that  they  are  or  may 
be  infinite;  that  space  and  duration  are  infinite; 
that  the  attributes  of  God  are  infinite ;  that  our 
own  existence  will  be  infinite  or  without  termina- 
tion ;  and  we  do  not  understand  what  is  meant  by 
infinity ;  we  do  not  comprehend  these  truths.  I 
answer,  that  if  we  do  not  understand  those  propo- 
sitions, —  if  they  are  unintelligible,  —  it  is  very  idle 


166  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

to  make  them.  We  do  not  comprehend  infinity 
in  itself  considered ;  but  we  comprehend  our  own 
idea  of  infinity,  with  the  knowledge,  as  in  very 
many  other  cases,  that  it  is  an  inadequate  idea. 
Our  ideas  of  things  infinite  are,  as  that  word  im* 
plies,*  essentially  negative  ideas.  They  consist  in 
the  conception  of  certain  things,  accompanied  with 
the  belief  of  the  absence  of  all  limit  or  termination. 
We  not  only  have  an  idea  of  infinity,  but  it  is  im- 
possible we  should  not  have.  The  very  constitu- 
tion of  our  minds  is  such  that  we  cannot,  for  in- 
stance, imagine  a  period  when  time  began,  or  when 
it  may  end.  It  is  true  that  we  are  unable  to  con- 
ceive of  infinity  positively,  we  do  not  understand 
all  its  nature ;  and  we  can  reason  about  it  there- 
fore but  very  partially.  It  belongs  to  the  class  of 
inadequate  ideas,  which  includes  far  the  greater 
portion  of  all  our  ideas ;  and  the  propositions  re- 
lating to  it  are  no  more  unintelligible  than  the 
propositions  which  relate  to  other  ideas  of  this 
class.  I  affirm,  that  the  same  person  who  called 
on  me  to-day  visited  me  yesterday ;  and  there  is 
no  one,  I  think,  who  will  maintain  that  this  is  an 
incomprehensible  proposition.  Yet  there  are  few 
who  will  pretend  to  have  a  perfectly  adequate 
idea  of  identity,  the  notion  of  which  is  involved 
in  the  proposition  just  stated ;  and  many  ques- 
tions may  be  raised  respecting  this  subject,  as 
well  as  respecting  infinity,  by  which  most  minds 
would  be  perplexed.  I  say  that  the  sun  is  the 

*  From  the  Latin  in  negative,  andjinitus. 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  167 

principal  source  of  light  and  heat ;  ami  the  prop- 
osition is  perfectly  intelligible.  Bat  I  have  not 
an  adequate  idea  of  the  sun;  there  are  many 
things  concerning  it,  as  well  as  concerning  in- 
finity, which  I  can  neither  affirm  nor  deny.  ] 
cannot  say,  for  instance,  whether,  as  some  have 
imagined,  it  be  adapted  to  the  support  of  animals 
and  vegetables,  in  any  respect  similar  to  those 
which  exist  upon  the  earth.  Our  idea  of  infinity 
differs  from  most  other  ideas  of  the  class  to  which 
I  have  referred  it,  only  in  this  respect,  —  that  its  in- 
adequacy is  occasioned  by  the  fact,  that  the  sub- 
ject is  beyond  the  grasp  of  our  faculties ;  while  the 
inadequacy  of  most  other  ideas  seems  to  arise 
from  the  deficiency  of  our  means  of  information. 
But  this  is  a  difference  which  does  not  in  any  de- 
gree affect  the  nature  of  the  propositions  made 
concerning  it,  so  as  to  distinguish  them  from  other 
propositions  relating  to  inadequate  ideas. 

But  it  will  be  said,  that  we  have  no  conception 
of  omniscience;  and  yet  that  we  make  proposi- 
tions concerning  it,  which  have  a  meaning  and 
a  very  important  one.  I  answer,  that  they  have 
not  only  an  important,  but  a  perfectly  intelligible 
meaning;  and  that  this  subject  is  of  a  similar 
kind  to  many  others,  of  the  nature  and  relations 
of  which  the  understanding  has  distinct  ideas, 
though  they  are  subjects  of  which  the  imagina- 
tion cannot  form  distinct  conceptions.  Fix  on  any 
particular  object  of  knowledge,  and  I  can  conceive, 
in  every  sense  of  the  word,  that  this  should  be 
known  to  God.  But  when  these  objects  are  in- 

19 


168  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

finite,  or  when  they  are  multiplied  beyond  very 
narrow  limits,  my  imagination  fails  and  is  al- 
together confounded.  But  the  same  is  the  case 
with  regard  to  much  humbler  subjects.  No  ideas 
can  be  more  definite,  considered  as  objects  of  the 
understanding,  than  those  which  relate  to  number 
and  quantity ;  yet  it  is  principally  collective  and 
aggregate  ideas  involving  the  notion  of  great  num- 
bers or  vast  quantity,  that  the  imagination  is  thus 
unable  to  embrace.  When  I  am  told  that  there 
are  more  than  six  hundred  millions  of  inhabitants 
upon  the  earth,  I  understand  the  proposition  as 
perfectly,  as  when  I  am  told  that  there  are  six  indi- 
viduals in  a  certain  room.  But  of  the  latter  my 
imagination  can  form  a  distinct  conception,  of  the 
former  it  cannot.  I  have  no  images  in  my  mind 
which  correspond  in  any  considerable  degree  to 
the  immense  number  of  individuals  mentioned; 
or  to  that  vast  mass  of  matter  with  all  its  vari- 
ous modifications  which  constitutes  the  earth. 
Still  less  can  one  form  distinct  images  of  what 
astronomy  has  made  known  to  us  respecting  the 
universe.  But  who  will  pretend  that  man  cannot 
comprehend  the  truths  which  man  has  discovered  ? 
We  need  not,  however,  go  so  far  for  examples.  I 
can  form  no  image  of  a  figure  with  twenty  equal 
sides,  —  none  which  shall  distinguish  it  from  a 
similar  figure  of  nineteen  or  twenty-one.  But  I 
am  surely  able  to  comprehend  propositions  re- 
specting such  a  figure  with  twenty  sides;  and  I 
have  a  very  clear  idea  of  it  as  an  object  of  the 
understanding.  The  fact  therefore  that  our  imagi- 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  169 

nations  cannot  conceive  of  omniscience,  has  no 
bearing  to  prove  that  our  reason  cannot  compre- 
hend the  propositions  which  we  make  concern- 
ing it.  When  indeed  we  regard  omniscience  as 
infinite  knowledge,  then  our  ideas  respecting  it, 
however  clear,  must  be  inadequate.  But,  as  I 
have  just  shown,  propositions  relating  to  inade- 
quate ideas  may  be  altogether  intelligible. 

Language  then  cannot  be  formed  into  proposi- 
tions having  a  meaning,  which  meaning  is  not,  in 
itself  considered,  fully  to  be  comprehended.  This 
is  merely  saying,  in  other  terms,  that  the  human 
mind  is  capable  of  comprehending  the  ideas  of 
the  human  mind,  for  no  other  ideas  are  associated 
with,  or  can  be  expressed  by,  language.  What 
then  is  the  character  of  those  proposition^  said  to 
be  derived  from  the  Scriptures,  which  are  called 
incomprehensible ;  and  which,  it  is  affirmed,  ex- 
press mysteries  above  human  reason  ?  I  answer, 
that  so  far  as  they  have  a  meaning,  they  are  intel- 
ligible ;  and  that  many  of  them  are,  in  fact,  prop- 
ositions which  are  perfectly  intelligible.  When 
I  am  told  that  the  same  being  is  both  God  and 
man,  I  recognize,  as  I  have  before  said,*  a  very 
intelligible,  though  a  very  absurd  proposition,  that 
is,  I  know  well  all  the  senses  which  the  words  ad- 
mit When  it  is  affirmed  that  "  the  Father  is  God, 
and  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God ; 
and  yet  there  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God"; 
no  words  can  more  clearly  convey  any  meaning, 

•  See  pp.  57,  58. 


170  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

than  those  propositions  express  the  meaning,  that 
there  are  three  existences  of  whom  the  attributes 
of  God  may  be  predicated,  and  yet  that  there  is 
only  one  existence  of  whom  the  attributes  of  God 
may  be  predicated.  But  this  is  not  an  incompre- 
hensible mystery ;  it  is  plain  nonsense. 

It  seems  to  me  in  one  respect  a  most  futile,  and 
in  another  a  most  irreverent,  sort  of  discussion,  to 
inquire,  what  would  be,  or  what  ought  to  be,  our 
state  of  mind,  if  such  propositions  were  found 
in  revelation ;  or  had  been  taught  us  by  any  being 
performing  miracles  in  evidence  of  his  mission 
from  God.  It  is  a  thing  impossible,  and  not  to 
be  imagined.  When  we  have  once  settled  the 
real  nature  of  those  propositions,  all  controversy 
about  their  making  a  part  of  Christianity  is  at 
an  end ;  unless,  indeed,  we  urge  this  controversy, 
not  as  Christians,  but  as  unbelievers. 

The  propositions,  then,  of  which  we  speak,  are 
altogether  intelligible,  and  are  not  mysteries.  It 
is  only  in  violation  of  that  fundamental  rule  of 
criticism,  which  continually  prevents  us  from  mis- 
understanding the  words  of  other  books  in  an 
irrational  or  absurd  meaning,  that  any  support 
has  been  found  for  them  in  the  writings  of  the 
New  Testament.  These  writings  have  been  ex- 
plained in  a  manner,  in  which  if  any  other  work 
were  explained,  we  should  think  that  its  author 
was  regarded  by  his  expositor  as  destitute  of  com- 
mon sense;  unless  we  ascribed  this  character  to 
the  expositor  himself.  It  may  give  us  some  idea 
of  the  extent  to  which  the  misinterpretation  of  the 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  171 

Scriptures  fc.as  been  carried,  and  of  the  degree  to 
which  the  religion  of  Christians  has  been  corrupted, 
to  recollect  that  the  creed  attributed  to  Athana- 
sius,  but  which  is  in  fact  a  spurious  work  of  some 
unknown  author,  which  Athanasius  himself  would 
have  regarded  with  abhorrence,  —  a  creed  which 
seems  to  have  been  formed  in  a  delirium  of  folly, 
—  was  for  ages  the  professed  faith  of  the  whole 
Western  Church;  and  is  still  the  professed  faith 
of  a  great  portion  of  Protestants. 

I  have  said,  "  the  professed  faith  "  ;  for  although 
the  propositions  which  it  embodies,  considered  in 
themselves,  may  have  one  or  more  distinct  mean- 
ings, they  have  no  meaning  in  the  mind  of  him 
who  proposes  them  as  religious  truths.  The  words 
cannot  be  understood  in  any  sense  which  he  will 
acknowledge  to  be  what  he  intends  to  express. 
He  may  have  obscure,  unsettled,  and  irrational 
notions,  which  appear  to  him  to  answer  in  some 
sort  to  the  proposition  affirmed ;  but  he  can  have 
no  belief  that  really  corresponds  to  it;  for  though 
men  may,  and  often  do,  believe  contradictory  prop- 
ositions which  they  have  never  compared  to- 
gether, yet  no  man  can  believe  an  obvious  con- 
tradiction. While  he  is  maintaining  these  prop- 
ositions, he  may,  perhaps,  hold  a  doctrine  which 
might  properly  be  expressed  in  different  words; 
and  which  does  not  in  fact  differ  from  the  doc- 
trine of  those  to  whom  he  fancies  himself  most 
opposed.  But  whatever  he  does  in  fact  believe, 
that  he  may  express  distinctly  and  fully,  in  words 
which  carry  no  contradiction  upon  their  face.  The 

19* 


172  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

obscurity  of  the  subject  cannot  be  made  a  plea  for 
the  want  of  the  utmost  propriety  and  perspicuity 
of  language ;  for  it  is  not  the  subject  which  he  is 
required  to  explain,  but  only  his  own  belief  con- 
cerning it.  But  what  one  man  believes  may  be 
made  perfectly  intelligible  to  another  of  equal 
capacity  and  information. 

ARCHBISHOP  TILLOTSON  said  of  the  Athanasian 
creed,  that  he  wished  the  Church  of  England  "  were 
well  rid  of  it."  *  There  are  other  parts  of  her  ser- 
vice which  it  is  even  more  desirable  that  church 
should  be  well  rid  of.  Familiarity  may  reconcile 
us  to  what  is  most  offensive.  But  let  us  imagine 
it  as  possible  that  one  should  be  ignorant  of  the 
errors  prevailing  among  Christians,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  penetrated  with  just  conceptions  of 
the  Divinity.  With  what  inexpressible  astonish- 
ment and  horror  would  he  listen  for  the  first  time 
to  an  assembly  of  Christian  worshippers,  thus  ad- 
dressing their  God :  — 

"  By  the  mystery  of  thy  holy  incarnation,  by  thy 
holy  nativity  and  circumcision,  by  thy  baptism, 
fasting,  and  temptation, —  Good  Lord,  deliver  us. 

"  By  thine  agony  and  bloody  sweat,  by  thy  cross 
and  passion,  by  thy  precious  death  and  burial,  by 
thy  glorious   resurrection   and   ascension,  .... 
Good  Lord,  deliver  us." 

How  many  join  in  these  petitions  with  an  intel- 
ligent belief  of  the  propositions  implied  in  them  ? 

*  In  a  letter  to  Bishop  Burnet,  about  a  month  before  Tillotson'a 
death.  See  Birch's  Life  of  Tillotson. 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  173 

I  answer,  Not  one;  for  when  understood,  they 
cannot  be  believed.  How  many  fancy  that  they 
believe  them,  having  some  obscure  notions,  which 
they  think  answer  to  what  is  intended?  Certainly 
not  a  majority  of  those  listeners  who  have  at  all 
exercised  their  reason  upon  the  subject.  But  the 
doctrines  implied  are  not  doctrines  of  the  Church 
of  England  alone.  Other  churches  and  sects  are 
equally  responsible  for  their  promulgation.  And 
what  must  we  think  of  the  public  sanction  thus 
given  to  such  representations  of  God  and  Chris- 
tianity ?  What,  in  the  present  state  of  the  world, 
will  be  the  effect  upon  the  religious  sentiments 
of  men,  if  absurdities  so  revolting  are  present- 
ed to  their  minds  as  essential  doctrines  of  our 
faith  ?  If  there  be  any  honor  due  to  God,  if  Chris- 
tianity be  not  a  mere  vulgar  superstition,  if  there 
be  any  worth  in  religion,  if  any  respect  is  to  be 
paid  to  that  reason  which  God  gave  us  when  he 
formed  us  in  his  own  likeness,  if  any  concern  is 
to  be  felt  for  man  who  has  been  insulted  and  de- 
graded, it  is  a  matter  of  the  most  serious  impor- 
tance, that  this  solemn  mockery  of  all  that  is  most 
venerable,  and  most  essential  to  human  happiness, 
should  cease. 


SECTION  IX. 

EXPLANATIONS     OP     PARTICULAR     PASSAGES    OP    THE     NEW 
TESTAMENT,     ADDUCED     BY     TRINITARIANS. 

1  WILL  now  proceed  to  examine  the  principal 
passages  urged  by  Trinitarians.  I  do  this,  not 
chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  they  do 
not  support  their  doctrines,  —  that  point,  I  trust, 
is  already  settled,  —  but  in  order  to  assist  those 
who  may  wish  to  attain  a  correct  notion  of  their 
meaning,  and  particularly  such  as  are  familiar  only 
with  the  Trinitarian  application  of  them.  Most  of 
them  present  more  or  less  difficulty  to  a  modern 
reader ;  otherwise  they  could  not,  with  any  appear- 
ance of  reason,  have  been  perverted  to  the  support 
of  such  doctrines  ;  and  one  may  reasonably  desire 
to  know  how  they  are  probably  to  be  understood. 

But  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  the  case  is  the  same 
with  some  of  these  as  with  many  other  passages  in 
the  New  Testament.  We  may  confidently  reject  a 
particular  sense,  as  not  having  been  intended  by  the 
speaker  or  writer,  while,  at  the  same  time,  we  doubt 
whether  we  have  ascertained  his  true  meaning. 
Of  different  expositions  we  may  sometimes  hesi- 
tate which  to  prefer,  or  question  whether  any  one 
be  correct,  though  no  other  that  seems  preferable 
occur  to  us.  In  the  study  of  ancient  authors,  we 
must  often  content  ourselves  with  an  approxima- 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.     175 

tion  to  the  thoughts  intended  to  be  expressed ;  and 
for  the  most  part  have  not  a  full  and  clear  view  of 
all  that  was  present  to  the  mind  of  the  writer.  It 
would  require  a  mastery  which  none  can  attain  over 
the  whole  power  of  an  ancient  language  as  used 
by  different  individuals,  and  an  intimacy  which 
none  can  acquire  with  all  the  circumstances  af- 
fecting the  conceptions  and  feelings  of  an  ancient 
writer  and  his  contemporaries,  to  determine  in 
every  case  the  exact  force  and  bearing  of  his  words. 
Our  knowledge  is  not  unfrequently  so  imperfect, 
that  we  are  unable  fully  to  estimate  the  relative 
importance  of  the  different  considerations  which 
may  incline  us  to  adopt  one  meaning  or  another. 
The  explanations,  therefore,  of  some  of  the  pas- 
sages to  be  examined  may  be  more  or  less  prob- 
able or  accurate,  without  in  any  degree  affecting 
the  force  of  the  preceding  arguments.  However 
much  those  who  reject  the  Trinitarian  exposition 
of  certain  words  may  differ  among  themselves  as 
to  their  true  meaning ;  there  is,  in  consequence,  as 
little  reason  for  assenting  to  the  Trinitarian  ex- 
position, as  is  furnished  by  the  differences  among 
Protestants  for  adopting  the  creed  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  or  the  differences  among  Christians  for 
becoming  an  unbeliever.  An  equal  diversity  of 
opinion  has  existed  among  interpreters  concerning 
the  meaning  of  many  passages  not  particularly 
obnoxious  to  controversy.  Nor  is  this  variety  of 
explanation  to  be  supposed  peculiar  to  the  New 
Testament.  In  proportion  to  the  attention  which 
has  been  paid  to  the  ancient  philosopher^  to  Plato 


176       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

and  Aristotle,  for  example,  there  has  been  a  similai 
want  of  agreement  concerning  their  doctrines  and 
sentiments.  It  may  be  worth  while  to  illustrate 
what  has  been  said,  and  to  show  the  difficulty  that 
may  exist  in  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  words, 
even  when  the  discussion  excites  no  prejudice  or 
party  feeling,  by  attending  to  a  few  of  the  first 
declarations  of  our  Saviour,  which  it  is  probable 
many  readers  pass  over  with  scarcely  a  question 
as  to  their  sense. 

"  Reform ;  for  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at 
hand."*  The  Common  Version,  instead  of  "  Re- 
form," has  "  Repent."  To  correct  this  error,  noth- 
ing more  is  necessary  than  a  knowledge  of  the 
proper  sense  of  the  original  word.  But  what  was 
intended  by  the  words  "  kingdom  of  Heaven,"  as 
used  by  Christ?  and  how  were  they  understood  by 
the  Jews,  his  contemporaries,  when  first  uttered? 
Both  questions  are  important.  The  Jews  had  ex- 
pected that  their  Messiah  would  come  to  establish 
a  temporal  kingdom ;  and  the  idea  of  a  temporal 
kingdom  was  suggested  to  their  minds  by  those 
words  when  they  first  heard  them.  The  fact  con- 
cerning their  expectations  is  ascertained  by  a  pro- 
cess of  investigation  and  reasoning.  But  such  a 
kingdom  was  not  intended  by  our  Saviour.  Under 
common  circumstances,  we  endeavor  to  use  words 
in  that  sense  in  which  they  will  at  once  be  under- 
stood by  our  hearers.  But  we  learn  from  an  ex- 
amination of  the  Gospels,  that  Christ  employed 

*  Matthew  iv.  17. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   177 

terms,  familiar  to  his  hearers,  in  new  senses,  and 
left  his  meaning  to  be  gradually  ascertained  and 
settled,  as  the  minds  of  his  disciples  might  open  to 
the  truth.  What  then  was  his  meaning  ?  This  is 
a  question  to  which,  I  think,  many  readers  may 
find  it  more  difficult  to  return  a  clear  and  precise 
answer,  than  it  appears  to  be  at  first  thought.  He 
who  will  look  into  the  commentators  may  perceive 
how  indefinitely  and  inaccurately  it  is  liable  to  be 
understood.  For  myself,  I  conceive  him  to  have 
intended  by  the  "  kingdom  of  Heaven,"  or,  in  other 
words,  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  that  state  of  things 
in  which  men  should  recognize  the  authority  of 
God  as  the  supreme  lawgiver,  and  submit  them- 
selves to  his  laws,  as  human  subjects  to  those  of  a 
human  government.  This  I  suppose  to  be  the 
radical  idea  of  the  term  as  used  by  him,  an  idea 
which  is  to  be  regarded  under  various  relations,  is 
united  with  different  accessory  thoughts,  and  sug- 
gests different  associations,  according  to  the  vari- 
ous connections  in  which  it  is  presented.* 

"  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit ;  for  theirs  is  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven,"  f  —  that  is,  they  will  enjoy 
the  blessings  which  God  confers  upon  the  subjects 
of  his  kingdom,  upon  those  who  obey  his  laws. 
But  are  they  blessed  for  what  they  are,  or  for  the 
peculiar  advantages  which  they  enjoy  for  becom- 
ing what  they  ought  to  be  ?  Is  the  blessing  abso- 
lute and  universal  ?  Or  does  it  refer  only  to  the 

*  [See  also  the  note  on  Matthew  xiii.  11,  in  the  author's  Notes  on 
the  Gospels.] 
I  Matthew  v.  3. 


178       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

favorable  circumstances  of  the  class  spoken  of? 
Or  is  it  confined  to  some  particular  individuals  of 
that  class?  That  these  are  not  idle  questions, 
may  appear  from  the  words  which  St.  Luke  as- 
cribes to  Christ:  "Blessed  are  you  poor,"  the  quali- 
fication "in  spirit"  being  omitted;  "for  yours  is 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven";*  which  we  cannot  un- 
derstand as  referring  without  exception  to  the 
whole  class  of  the  poor.  The  words  given  by  St. 
Matthew  have  been  by  some  critics  so  constructed 
as  to  correspond  to  those  of  St.  Luke.f  Thus 
Wetstein  understands  them  as  addressed  particu- 
larly to  Christ's  poor  disciples,  and  as  meaning, 
Blessed  in  the  view  of  the  Spirit,  Blessed  in  the 
sight  of  God,  are  the  poor,  that  is,  you  poor.  It 
would  detain  us  too  long,  to  enter  into  the  reasons 
for  which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  this  interpretation  is 
to  be  rejected.  Let  us  attend,  then,  to  some  other 
expositions.  Many  commentators  of  the  Romish 
Church  understand  by  the  "  poor  in  spirit "  those 
who  voluntarily  submit  to  poverty.  Among  Prot- 
estants, Whitby  and  others  understand  "  men  of  a 
truly  Jmmble  and  lowly  spirit."  Paley,  apparently 
led  astray  by  the  sound  of  the  words  in  the  Com- 
mon Version,  supposes  our  Saviour  to  declare  that 
"the  poor-spirited  are  blessed";  and  has,  in  con- 
sequence, misrepresented  the  character  of  Chris- 
tian, that  is,  of  true  morality. J  We  may,  with 
some  reason,  suppose  Christ  to  have  meant,  that, 

*  Luke  vi.  20. 

t  By  connecting  ro>  irvcvfiaTi  with  p.a.Kapiot. 

J  See  his  Evidences  of  Christianity,  Part  IL  Ch.  2 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       179 

in  the  existing  circumstances  of  the  Jews,  the  poor 
were  far  more  likely  than  the  rich  to  have  the  dis- 
positions which  would  lead  them  to  become  his 
followers  ;  and  that  in  consequence  he  pronounced 
those  blessed  who  had  the  spirit  of  the  poor.  But 
I  think  it  most  probable  that  his  meaning  was  still 
different.  The  word  used  in  the  original  is  to  be 
distinguished  from  that  which  denotes  simply  the 
want  of  wealth.  It  implies  destitution,  and  was 
used  to  denote  such  as  lived  by  charity.  Looking 
around  him  upon  the  multitude,  he  saw  perhaps 
many  who  had  no  earthly  goods ;  and  there  stood 
near  him  the  few  disciples  who  had  at  that  time 
left  all  to  follow  him.  Borrowing,  as  was  usual 
with  him,  a  figure  from  present  objects,  he  speaks 
of  that  poverty  which  is  not  in  external  circum- 
stances, but  the  poverty  of  the  mind,  the  destitu- 
tion felt  within.  The  meaning  of  his  words,  I 
believe,  was,  Blessed  are  such  as  feel  that  they  are 
destitute  of  all  things ;  and  he  referred  to  such  as, 
free  from  the  high  pretensions  and  spiritual  pride 
of  the  generality  of  the  Jews,  might  feel  that  as 
Jews  they  had  no  claims  upon  God,  might  recog- 
nize their  own  deficiencies  in  goodness,  and  be 
sensible  how  much  was  wanting  to  their  true  hap- 
piness. 

Let  us  go  on  a  little  further.  "  Blessed  are  the 
mourners;  for  they  will  be  comforted."*  Does  this 
intend  those  who  deny  themselves  the  blessings  of 
life  and  endure  voluntary  penance,  as  some  Cath- 


*  Matthew  v.  4. 
90 


180       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

olics  explain  the  passage  ?  You  will  say  not. 
Does  it  mean  those  who  mourn  for  their  sins,  as 
many  Protestant  commentators  tell  us?  I  think 
otherwise.  The  purpose  of  our  Saviour  was,  I  be- 
lieve, simply  to  announce  that  his  religion  brought 
blessed  consolation  to  all  who  mourned. 

"  Blessed  are  the  meek ;  for  they  shall  inherit 
the  earth."  So  the  next  words  are  rendered  in  the 
Common  Version.  I  will  not  go  over  the  different 
meanings  that  have  been  assigned  to  them,  but 
will  only  ask  my  reader,  if  he  have  not  particu- 
larly attended  to  the  subject,  in  what  sense  he 
has  understood  them  ?  The  rendering  should  be, 
"  Blessed  are  the  mild,  for  they  will  inherit  the 
land  "  ;  that  is,  "  the  promised  land."  The  pas- 
sage cannot  be  understood  without  attention  to 
the  conceptions  of  the  Jews.  They  believed,  that, 
if  they  obeyed  God,  they  should  remain  in  posses- 
sion of  "  the  promised  land  "  ;  if  they  disobeyed 
him,  that  they  would  be  removed  from  it,  and 
scattered  among  other  nations.  Hence  "  the  in- 
heriting of  the  land  "  was  in  their  minds  but  an- 
other, name  for  the  enjoying  of  God's  favor.  In 
this  associated  and  figurative  sense  the  terms 
were  used  by  Christ.  His  meaning  was,  literally, 
Blessed  are  the  mild,  for  they  will  enjoy  the  favor 
of  God.  In  the  Psalm  (xxxvii.  11)  from  which  he 
borrowed  the  words,  they  are,  probably,  to  be  un- 
derstood literally. 

These  examples  may  serve  in  some  measure  to 
show,  that  it  is  not  always  easy  to  determine  the 
meaning  even  of  passages  which  may  seem  at  first 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       181 

new  to  present  little  difficulty.  If,  therefore,  we 
may  hesitate  about  the  true  sense  of  those  quoted 
by  Trinitarians,  this  circumstance  will  afford  no 
ground  for  hesitation  in  rejecting  the  Trinitarian 
sense.  We  must  not  assign  an  absurd  meaning 
to  a  passage,  because  we  are  unable  to  satisfy  our- 
selves about  the  meaning  intended.  He  would 
reason  very  ill,  who,  because  he  was  unable  to 
satisfy  himself  as  to  what  was  meant  by  our 
Saviour  when  he  spoke  of  eating  his  flesh  and 
drinking  his  blood,  should,  on  that  account,  adopt 
the  Roman  Catholic  exposition  of  his  words. 

In  what  follows,  I  shall  confine  my  remarks  to 
passages  of  the  New  Testament.  If  the  doctrines 
of  Trinitarians  were  not  taught  by  Christ  and  his 
Apostles,  it  would  be  a  superfluous  labor  to  ex- 
amine the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  which 
have  been  represented  as  containing  indications  of 
them.*  There  are  arguments  so  futile  that  one 
may  be  excused  from  remarking  upon  them.  At 
the  present  day,  it  can  hardly  be  necessary  to 
prove  that  the  writer  of  the  first  chapters  of  Gene- 
sis was  riot  a  Trinitarian ;  or  that  there  is  no  evi- 


•  ["  The  Old  Testament,"  says  Professor  Stuart,  "  does  but  ob- 
scurely (if  at  all)  reveal  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity On  the  sup- 
position that  has  been  made,  namely,  that  the  full  development  of 
Trinity  was  not  made,  and  could  not  be  made,  until  the  time  of  the 
Saviour's  incarnation,  it  is  easy  to  see  why  nothing  more  than  pre- 
paratory hints  should  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament  respecting  it 
He  who  finds  more  than  these  there,  has  reason,  so  far  as  I  can  see, 
to  apprehend  that  his  speculations  in  theology  have  stronger  hold 
upon  him  than  the  principles  of  philology .''  —  Biblical  Repository  for 
July,  1835,  pp.  105  -  108.] 


182      EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

dence  for  the  doctrine  in  the  words  of  Isaiah 
(vi.  3),  "Holy,  holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  of  Hosts"; 
though,  according  to  Dr.  William  Lowth,  a  stand- 
ard commentator  on  the  Prophets,  "  the  Christian 
Church  hath  always  thought  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  blessed  Trinity  was  implied  in  this  repetition.*' 
Another  expositor  of  equal  note,  Bishop  Patrick, 
tells  us,  that  "  many  of  the  ancient  Fathers  think 
there  is  a  plain  intimation  of  the  Trinity  in  these 
words,  i  The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord '  " ;  yet  it 
cannot  be  expected  that  one  should  go  into  an  ex- 
planation of  this  proposition,  for  the  sake  of  re- 
moving any  difficulty  in  comprehending  it.  The 
passage  of  the  Old  Testament  which  is  most  re- 
lied upon  by  Trinitarians  is  found  in  Isaiah  ix.  6. 
It  has  been  often  explained.  There  is,  I  think,  no 
evidence  that  it  relates  to  Christ ;  and  if  it  do,  the 
common  version  of  it  is  incorrect.  It  may  be  thua 
rendered :  — 

"  For  unto  us  a  child  is  born, 
Unto  us  a  son  is  given  ; 

And  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder  J 
And  he  shall  be  called 
Wonderful,  counsellor,  mighty  potentate, 
Everlasting  father,  prince  of  peace."  * 

*  I  quote  the.  translation  given  by  the  Rev.  George  R.  Noyes  in 
his  Sermon  upon  Isaiah  ix.  G,  lately  published,  and  refer  to  the  same 
discourse  for  its  explanation  and  defence.  I  do  so  the  more  readily, 
as  it  gives  me  an  opportunity  of  expressing  my  respect  for  that  able 
and  accurate  scholar,  and  my  strong  interest  in  those  labors  by  which 
he  is  contributing  so  much  toward  a  better  understanding  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures. 

[The  sermon  here  referred  to  was  republished  in  No.  78  of  the 
Tracts  of  the  American  Unitarian  Association.  See  also,  on  this 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       183 

I  proceed,  then,  to  remark  upon  the  principal 
passages  adduced  by  Trinitarians  professedly  from 
the  New  Testament  in  support  of  their  doctrines; 
and  in  doing  so  shall  distribute  them  into  several 
different  classes,  according  to  the  different  errors 
which  have  led  to  their  misuse.  The  sources  of 
misinterpretation  and  mistake  will  thus  appear, 
and  in  regard  to  the  texts  of  less  importance  which 
I  shall  omit  to  notice,  it  will  in  general  be  easy  to 
determine  to  what  head  they  are  to  be  referred,  am1 
in  what  manner  understood. 


CLASS    I. 

To  the  first  class  we  may  refer  Interpolated  and 
Corrupted  Passages.     Such  are  the  following. 

passage,  the  remarks  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Noyes  in  the  Christian  Exami- 
ner for  January,  1836,  Vol.  XIX.  pp.  292-295.  The  article  just 
cited  examines  the  question,  "  Whether  the  Deity  of  the  Messiah  be 
ft  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament,"  with  particular  reference  to  the 
statements  and  reasonings  of  Hengstenberg,  in  his  Christology.  la 
connection  with  two  others  by  which  it  was  followed,  on  the  "  Mean- 
ing of  the  Title  Angel  of  Jehovah,  as  used  in  Scripture,"  and  "  The 
Angel  of  Jehovah  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  not  identical  with 
the  Messiah,"  (sec  the  Christian  Examiner  for  May  and  July,  1836,) 
it  presents,  probably,  the  ablest  and  most  satisfactory  discussion  of 
the  subject  of  which  it  treats  that  is  to  be  found  in  the  English  lan- 
guage. —  It  may  be  mentioned,  that  the  translation  given  above, 
"mighty  potentate,"  instead  )f  "the  mighty  God,"  as  in  the  Common 
Version,  is  supported,  substantially,  by  the  authority  of  Luther, 
Gcsenius,  De  Wette,  and  Maurer.] 
20  * 


184       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Acts  xx.  28.  Here  in  the  Common  Version,  we 
find  these  words :  "  To  feed  the  church  of  GOD, 
which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood." 
Instead  of  "  the  church  of  God,"  the  true  reading 
is  "  the  church  of  the  Lord."  * 

1  Timothy  iii.  16.  "  GOD  was  manifested  in  the 
flesh."  The  reading  ®eo?  ( God)  is  spurious  ;  but 
it  has  been  doubted  whether  we  should  read  09 
(who  or  he  who)  or  o  (which). 

1  John  v.  7.  The  famous  text  of  the  three  heav- 
enly witnesses.^  The  value  that  has  been  formerly 
attached  to  this  passage,  though  unquestionably 

*  [Among  the  critics  and  commentators  who  regard  this  as  the 
genuine  or  as  the  most  probable  reading,  may  be  mentioned  the 
names  of  Grotius,  Wetstein,  Michaelis  (Anmerk.  in  loc.),  Bp.  Marsh, 
Griesbach,  Schott,  Heinrichs,  Rosenmuller,  Kuinoel,  Lachmann,  Ti- 
schendorf,  Meyer,  De  Wette,  Olshausen,  Baumgarten,  Adam  Clarke, 
John  Pye  Smith,  Stuart  (Bibl.  Repos.  for  April,  1838,  p.315),  Barnes, 
Hackett,  Davidson,  Tregelles.] 

t  [This  text  is  generally  referred  to,  for  conciseness,  as  "  1  John 
v.  7,"  though  in  fact  the  spurious  words  form  a  part  of  the  7th  and 
8th  verses.  It  would  hardly  be  worth  while  to  notice  this,  had  not 
some  who  have  written  on  the  subject  been  so  ignorant  as  to  argue 
the  genuineness  of  the  seventh  verse  from  the  assumed  genuineness 
of  the  first  part  of  the  eighth ;  though  the  latter,  equally  with  the 
spurious  portion  of  the  former,  is  wanting  in  all  known  Greek  manu- 
scripts written  before  the  invention  of  printing,  in  all  the  ancient  ver- 
sions but  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  even  in  the  oldest  manuscripts  of 
that ;  is  quoted  by  no  ancient  Greek  Father,  and  by  no  Latin  Father 
before  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth  century.  The  following  are  the 
verses  in  question,  as  translated  in  the  Common  Version,  the  spu- 
rious portion  being  enclosed  in  marks  of  parenthesis  :  — 

"  For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  (in  heaven,  the  Father,  the 
Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these  three  are  one.  8.  And  there 
are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth),  the  spirit,  and  the  water,  and 
tihe  blood  :  and  these  three  agree  in  one."] 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   185 

interpolated,  may  be  estimated  from  the  obstinacy 
with  which  it  has  been  contended  for,  from  its  still 
retaining  its  place  as  genuine  in  the  editions  of 
the  Common  Version,  and  even  in  editions  of  the 
original  professedly  formed  on  the  text  of  Gries- 
bach,  from  the  lingering  glances  cast  toward  it  by 
such  writers  as  Bishop  Middleton,  and  from  the 
pertinacity  with  which  the  more  ignorant  or  big 
oted  class  of  controversialists  continue  to  quote 
and  even  defend  it. 

After  all  that  has  been  written  concerning  these 
texts,  no  one  of  them  requires  particular  notice  ex- 
cept that  from  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy.  Of 
this  the  true  reading  and  proper  explanation  are 
both  doubtful.  In  respect  to  the  reading,  the 
question  is,  as  I  have  mentioned,  between  05  (who 
or  he  who)  and  o  (which).  Griesbach  gives  the 
preference  to  the  former,  but  it  has  been  shown,  1 
think,  that  he  is  incorrect  in  the  citation  of  his  au- 
thorities.* The  original  reading,  I  believe  to  have 

•  See  Laurence's  llemarks  upon  Griesbach's  Classification  if  Man 
uscripts,  pp.  71-83.  According  to  Griesbach,  of  the  Versions  (which 
as  regards  this  text  afford  by  far  the  most  important  evidence  to  be 
adduced),  the  Arabic  of  the  Polyglot,  and  the  Slavonic,  alone  sup- 
port the  reading  6e 6s ;  in  all  the  others,  a  pronoun  is  used  answering 
to  os  or  to  o.  That  is  to  say,  the  Coptic,  the  Sahidic,  and  the  Phi- 
loxenian  Syriac  in  its  margin,  express  the  pronoun  os ;  the  Vulgate, 
and  the  older  Latin  versions,  o,  quod;  and  the  Peshito  or  vulgar  Syri- 
ac, the  Philoxenian  Syriac  in  its  text,  the  Erpenian  Arabic,  the  JEthi- 
opic,  and  the  Armenian,  use  a  pronoun  which  may  be  translated  in- 
differently "  who''"  or  "  which." 

But  according  to  Dr.  Laurence,  whose  statements  I  see  no  reason 
to  distrust,  "  the  Coptic,  the  Sahidic,  and  the  Philoxenian  versions  do 
not  necessarily  read  os,  but  most  probably  o,"  and  "  the  Peshito  or 


186       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

been  o  (ivhich).  For  this  the  external  evidence, 
when  fairly  adjusted,  seems  greatly  to  preponder- 
ate ;  and  it  may  have  been  altered  by  transcribers 
first  into  05,  and  afterwards  into  Beo?,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  theological  interpretation  of  the  pas- 
sage, according  to  which  the  mystery  spoken  of 
was  Christ,  —  an  interpretation  that  appears  to 

vulgar  Syriac,  the  Erpenian  Arabic,  and  the  jEthiopic,  do  not  indif- 
ferently read  os  or  o,  but  indisputably  o."  "  The  Armenian  reads 
neither  os  nor  o,  but,  in  conjunction  with  the  Byzantine  text,  Geos." 
Of  all  these  versions,  therefore,  Griesbach's  account  is  incorrect ;  and 
the  number  and  importance  of  those  which  favor  the  reading  o,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  fact  of  its  having  been,  from  the  first,  the  read- 
ing of  the  whole  Western  Church,  produce  a  preponderating  weight 
of  evidence  in  its  favor. 

In  regard  to  the  Philoxenian  version,  Dr.  Laurence,  as  may  appear 
from  what  is  quoted,  expresses  himself  with  some  obscurity.  But  I 
presume  his  opinion  was,  that  both  in  the  text  and  in  the  margin  it 
probably  reads  o.  See  White's  note  in  his  edition  of  this  version. 

[Later  investigations  have  shown  that  the  statements  of  Dr.  Lau- 
rence here  relied  on  are  in  several  respects  erroneous.  But  before 
pointing  out  their  inaccuracy,  it  maybe  well,  for  the  better  understand- 
ing of  the  subject,  to  mention  the  dates  generally  assigned  by  schol- 
ars to  the  ancient  versions  which  contain  this  passage.  The  Old 
Latin  or  Italic,  and  the  Peshito  Syriac,  are  supposed  to  have  been 
made  in  the  second  century ;  the  Coptic  and  Sahidic,  in  the  third,  or 
the  latter  part  of  the  second  ;  the  ^Ethiopic,  Gothic,  and  Latin  Vul- 
gate, in  the  fourth ;  the  Armenian,  in  the  fifth ;  the  Philoxenian  or 
Harclean  Syriac  was  completed  A.  D.  508,  and  revised  A.  D.  616. 
Later  versions  are  the  Georgian,  of  the  sixth  century,  but  since  al- 
tered from  the  Slavonic,  made  in  the  ninth  ;  and  the  Arabic  versions, 
one  edited  by  Erpenius,  supposed  to  be  made  from  the  Syriac,  an- 
other published  in  the  Paris  and  London  Polyglots,  made  from  the 
Greek,  — both  of  uncertain  date  and  very  little  value,  —  and  still  an- 
other of  the  ninth  century,  made  from  the  Greek  at  Emesa  in  Syria 
by  one  Daniel  Philentolos,  a  manuscript  of  which  is  preserved  in  the 
Vatican  Library. 

In  regard  to  the  reading  of  the  present  passage  in  these  versions, 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   187 

have  been  given  it  at  an  early  period.  But  the 
passage,  I  believe,  has  no  reference  to  Christ  per 
sonally. 

The  words  translated  "  mystery  of  godliness,"  as 
if  purposely  to  obscure  the  sense,  should  be  ren- 
dered "the  new  doctrine  of  piety,"  or  "concerning 
piety  " ;  and  in  order  to  avoid  an  awkward  collo- 

the  following  is  believed  to  be  a  correct  account  of  the  facts  which 
may  now  be  considered  as  established.  The  Old  Latin  or  Italic  ver- 
sion, and  the  Latin  Vulgate,  read  quod,  corresponding  to  o,  which ;  — 
the  Gothic,  as  edited  by  Gabelentz  and  Loebe,  has  the  masculine  rela- 
tive, answering  to  os,  who,  though  the  word  corresponding  to  /iuor^- 
ptoi/,  runcr,  is  feminine  ;  —  the  Peshito  Syriac,  the  Coptic,  the  Sahidic, 
the  jEthiopic,  the  Armenian,  the  Philoxcnian  Syriac  both  in  the  text 
and  in  the  margin,  the  Erpenian  Arabic,  and  the  Arabic  of  Philen- 
tolos  (see  Hug's  Introd.  to  the  N.  T.,  §  107,  3d  ed.),  use  a  pronoun 
which  may  here  be  indifferently  translated  who  or  which;  —  the  Arabic 
of  the  Polyglot,  the  Slavonic,  and  the  Georgian,  support  the  reading 
Geoy,  God.  In  most  of  the  ambiguous  versions,  the  relative  pronoun 
has  the  same  form  for  all  the  genders ;  in  the  Coptic  and  Sahidic  it 
is  masculine,  but  the  word  answering  to  p-v&TTjptov  being  also  mascu- 
line, we  have  no  means  of  determining  whether  the  translators  had 
before  them  os  or  o.  In  respect  to  the  Armenian  version,  the  Eclectic 
Review  for  January  1831,  p.  48,  gives  a  quotation,  apparently  from 
a  later  edition  of  Dr.  Laurence's  Essay,  according  to  which  he  no 
longer  claims  it  as  supporting  the  reading  6fds,  but  leaves  its  testi- 
mony doubtful.  The  Eclectic  Reviewer  himself,  Dr.  Henderson,  and 
Dr.  Trcgclles,  for  whom  a  special  collation  of  Zohrab's  edition  of  this 
version  has  been  made  by  a  competent  scholar,  represent  it  as  read- 
ing a  pronoun  equivalent  to  cither  os  or  o,  as  stated  above.  As  to 
.foe  Philoxcnian  Syriac,  see  the  note  of  White,  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Norton. 

The  evidence  of  the  ancient  versions  is  particularly  important  in 
regard  to  this  passage,  on  account  of  the  slight  difference  between 
the  three  readings  as  written  in  the  ancient  Greek  manuscripts.  In 
the  uncial  or  more  ancient  manuscripts,  Qeos,  of,  and  o  were  writ- 
ten nearly  as  follows :  0~C,  OC,  O.  The  change  from  one  of  these 
readings  to  another  could  therefore  bo  much  more  easily  made  in  the 


188      EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

cation  of  words  in  English,  we  may  connect  the 
epithet  "great"  with  ths  substantives  "pillar  and 
foundation  "  ;  an  arrangement  which,  though  con- 
trary to  the  construction  of  the  original,  sufficiently 
expresses  the  sense.  The  following  rendering,  then, 
I  believe,  gives  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle. 

u  I  thus  write  to  you,  hoping  to  come  to  you 

Greek  manuscripts  than  in  those  of  the  ancient  versions.  The  more 
important  of  these  versions  represent  the  text  of  manuscripts  far 
older,  probably,  than  any  that  have  come  down  to  us.  They  repre- 
sent, moreover,  the  text  of  manuscripts  found  in  countries  widely  sep- 
arated from  each  other.  Their  testimony  has  therefore  not  only  the 
weight  of  the  highest  antiquity,  but  is  far  more  independent,  than 
/hat  of  the  great  mass  of  modern  manuscripts.  A  large  majority  of 
these  were  written  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries,  or  later, 
within  the  narrow  limits  of  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople,  and 
under  influences  which  tended  to  produce  a  uniformity  of  text.  (See 
Norton's  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  Vol.  I.,  Additional  Note  A, 
pp.  xxx.-xxxii.)  In  many  passages  the  reading  which  the  great 
body  of  them  present  differs  from  that  which  is  proved  to  be  genu- 
ine by  the  agreement  of  the  most  ancient  witnesses  combined  with 
internal  evidence.  It  is  accordingly  a  well-established  principle  of 
criticism,  to  use  the  words  of  Tregelles,  that  "the  mass  of  recent 
documents  possesses  no  determining  voice,  in  a  question  as  to  what 
we  should  receive  as  genuine  readings."  When,  therefore,  we  find 
that  the  evidence  of  the  nine  oldest  versions  in  favor  of  a  relative 
pronoun  as  the  original  reading  in  this  passage  is  confirmed  by  the 
Jive  oldest  and  best  manuscripts  which  we  possess  (the  Alexandrine, 
Ephrem,  Augian,  and  Boernerian  reading  o?,  the  Clermont  o),  and 
also  by  the  earliest  Fathers  to  whose  testimony  we  can  appeal  with  any 
confidence,  we  can  have  little  doubt  that  the  reading  6edy,  though 
found  in  all  but  three  of  the  cursive,  and  in  two  of  the  later  uncial 
manuscripts,  is  a  corruption  of  the  original.  It  is  perhaps  worth 
noting,  that  one  of  the  more  recent  manuscripts  which  read  or,  the 
Codex  Colbertinus  2844  (numbered  17  in  the  Epistles  by  the  critical 
editors),  is  of  peculiar  value.  Eichhorn,  as  quoted  by  Tregelles, 
bpcaks  of  it  as  "  full  of  the  most  excellent  and  oldest  readings  " ;  and 
styles  it  "  the  Queen  of  the  manuscripts  in  cursive  letters." 


EXPLANATION'S  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   189 

shortly;  but  should  I  be  delayed,  that  you  may 
know  how  you  ought  to  conduct  yourself  in  the 
house  of  God,  that  is,  the  assembly  of  the  living 
God.  Beyond  doubt,  the  great  pillar  and  founda- 
tion of  the  true  religion  is  the  new  doctrine  con- 
cerning piety,  which  has  teen  made  known  in  hu- 
man weakness,  proved  true  by  divine  power,  while 

We  are  left  then  to  decide  between  os  and  o.  The  question  which 
of  these  readings  is  to  be  preferred  is  rendered  more  difficult  of  sola 
tion  by  the  ambiguous  evidence  of  most  of  the  versions,  and,  it  may 
be  added,  of  many  of  the  Fathers.  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  it 
here.  Among  modern  critics,  os  is  regarded  as  the  most  probable 
reading  by  Benson,  Griesbach,  Schott,  Vater,  Rosenmuller,  Hein- 
richs,  Meyer,  De  Wette,  Olshausen,  Wiesinger,  Huther,  Lachmann, 
Tischendorf,  Davidson,  and  Tregelles;  o  is  preferred  by  Erasmus, 
Grotius,  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  Wetstein,  and  Professor  Porter. 

One  who  wishes  to  pursue  the  subject  further,  and  to  examine  the 
authorities  for  the  statements  which  have  here  been  made,  may  con- 
sult, in  addition  to  the  notes  of  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Scholz,  and 
Tischendorf,  in  their  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  the  Eclectic 
Review  for  January  1831,  Art.  III. ;  Porter's  Principles  of  Textual 
Criticism,  (London,  1848,)  pp.  482-493  ;  Davidson's  Biblical  Criti- 
cism,  (London,  1853,)  Vol.  II.  pp.  382-403  ;  Tregelles's  Account  of 
the  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  (London,  1854,)  pp. 
227-231  ;  and  the  able  reviews  of  Porter  and  Davidson,  by  the  Rev 
Dr.  Noyes  (who  prefers  the  reading  o?),  in  the  Christian  Examiner 
for  January  1850,  and  May  1853.  The  note  of  Wetstein  deserves 
particularly  to  be  studied.  —  Of  the  earlier  defenders  of  the  common 
reading  of  this  passage,  the  ablest,  perhaps,  is  Berriman,  whose 
"  Critical  Dissertation  upon  1  Tim.  iii.  16  "  appeared  in  1741.  Among 
its  later  champions,  the;  most  prominent  is  Dr.  Ebenezer  Hen- 
derson, whose  essay  on  the  subject,  entitled  "The  Great  Mystery 
of  Godliness  Incontrovertible,"  &c.,  was  published  in  London  in 
1830,  and  reprinted,  with  additional  observations  by  Professor  Stu- 
art, in  the  Biblical  Repository  for  January  1832.  The  remark  of 
Dr.  Davidson,  that  "  Henderson's  reasoning  to  show  that  the  Old 
Syriac  version  may  have  had  Qtos  equally  well  as  o,  is  a  piece  of 
special  pleading  undeserving  of  notice,"  may  be  applied  with  justice 


190       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

angels  were  looking  on,  which  has  been  proclaimed 
to  the  Gentiles,  believed  in  the  world,  and  has  ob- 
tained a  glorious  reception." 

In  the  beginning  of  the  second  chapter  of  this 
Epistle,  St.  Paul  speaks  earnestly,  and  at  length, 
of  the  prayers  to  be  offered  by  Christians  in  their 
public  assemblies.  The  main  object  of  their  thus 

to  many  other  parts  of  this  essay.  The  careful  inquirer  will  find  that 
it  abounds  in  misstatements  and  false  assumptions ;  and  will  be  as- 
tonished at  the  suppression  of  important  facts,  of  which  it  hardly 
seems  possible  that  the  author  can  have  been  ignorant.  Some  of 
Dr.  Henderson's  errors  are  pointed  out  in  the  article  in  the  Eclectic 
Eeview  before  referred  to,  and  in  the  Christian  Examiner  for  Janu- 
ary 1850,  p.  29,  note.  There  are  other  important  mistakes  and  omis- 
sions not  there  noted,  particularly  in  his  account  of  the  evidence  o* 
the  Fathers. 

Professor  Stuart,  in  the  new  edition  of  his  Letters  to  Dr.  Chan- 
ning  contained  in  his  "Miscellanies,"  published  in  1846,  has  some 
remarks  on  this  passage,  in  which  he  has  repeated  many  of  Dr. 
Henderson's  errors,  and  added  others  of  his  own.  After  the  state- 
ments and  references  which  have  been  made,  it  is  not  worth  while  to 
point  these  out  in  detail.  But  though  the  accuracy  of  Professor 
Stuart  cannot  be  relied  on,  he  has  shown  his  candor  in  the  following 
honest  concession,  whicn  is  quoted  with  approbation  by  Dr.  David 
son,  himself  a  Trinitarian. 

"I  cannot  feel,"  he  says,  in  concluding  his  remarks  supplementary 
to  Dr.  Henderson's  essay,  "  that  the  contest  on  the  subject  of  the 
reading  can  profit  one  side  so  much,  or  harm  the  other  so  much, 
as  disputants  respecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  have  supposed. 
Whoever  attentively  studies  John  xvii.  20-26,  1  John  i.  3,  ii.  5, 
iv.  15,  16,  and  other  passages  of  the  like  tenor,  will  see  that  '  God 
might  be  manifest '  in  the  person  of  Christ,  without  the  necessary 
implication  of  the  proper  divinity  of  the  Saviour ;  at  least,  that  the 
phraseology  of  Scripture  docs  admit  of  other  constructions  besides 
this  ;  and  other  ones,  moreover,  which  are  not  forced.  And  con 
ceding  this  fact,  less  is  determined  by  the  contest  about  os  and  6eos, 
in  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  than  might  seem  to  be  at  first  view."  —  Biblical 
Kepssitory  for  January,  1832,  p.  79.] 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   191 

associating  together  was  to  excite  their  feelings  of 
piety  by  mutual  sympathy.  Then  follow  direc- 
tions respecting  the  well-ordering  of  a  Ch/istian 
community  or  church,  and  the  prcper  character  of 
its  officers ;  and,  in  conclusion,  the  Apostle  recurs 
to  the  great  distinctive  character  of  Christianity, 
its  new  doctrine  of  piety  to  God,  that  state  of 
mind  which  their  assemblies  were  particularly  in- 
tended to  cherish.  Thus  we  have  a  connected 
train  of  thought.  But  if  the  conclusion  of  the 
passage  be  explained  of  the  manifestation  of 
Christ,  or  of  God,  in  the  flesh,  a  new  subject  is 
abruptly  introduced,  having  but  a  remote  connec- 
tion with  what  precedes ;  and  one  which  we  per- 
ceive no  reason  for  the  Apostle's  adverting  to  in 
this  place.* 


CLASS    II. 

Passages  relating-  to   Christ  which  have  been  mi* 
translated. 

To  this  class  belongs  Phiiippians  ii.  5,  seqq. 
Here  the  Common  Version  makes  the  Apostle 
say  of  Christ,  that  he  "  thought  it  not  robbery  to 
be  equal  with  God."  This  has  been  considered 
a  decisive  argument  that  Christ  is  God ;  though 

*  [For  a  notice  of  the  various  readings  of  some  other  passages 
supposed  to  have  a  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  see  Appen- 
dix, Note  C.] 

21 


192       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

it  is  an  absurdity  to  say  of  any  being,  that  h* 
"  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  him- 
self." Perhaps  no  text,  however,  has  been  more 
frequently  quoted  or  referred  to.*  But  it  now 
seems  to  be  generally  conceded  that  the  words 
have  been  mistranslated.  In  the  verses  that  fol- 
low, the  verbal  rendering  of  ev  popfjif}  Qeov  is,  "  in 
the  form  of  God,"  and  that  of  /Aop(f>r)v  Sov\ov,  « the 
form  of  a  servant."  But  as  these  phrases  do  not 
correspond  to  our  modes  of  expression,  they  can 
hardly  convey  a  distinct  meaning  to  most  readers. 
"  To  be  in  the  form  of  another,"  as  here  used, 
means  "  to  appear  as  another,"  "  to  be  as  another." 
In  a  translation  it  is  better  to  substitute  one  ot 
these  equivalent,  but  more  intelligible  phrases. 
The  whole  passage  may  be  thus  rendered :  — 

"  Let  the  same  disposition  [Let  the  same  hu- 
mility and  benevolence]  be  in  you  which  was  in 
Jesus  Christ,  who  being  as  God  did  not  think  that 
his  equality  with  God  was  to  be  eagerly  retained  , 
but  divested  himself  of  it,  and  made  himself  as  a 
servant  and  was  as  men  are,  and  being  in  the  com- 
mon condition  of  man,  humbled  himself,  and  was 
submissive,  even  to  death,  the  death  of  the  cross." 

Christ  was  "in  the  form  of  God,"  or  "the  im- 
age of  God,"  or  "  as  God " ;  he  was  "  like  G  d,* 

•  Thus  Dr.  Watts  in  one  of  his  hymns  :  — 
"  Yet  there  is  one  of  human  frame, 
Jesus  arrayed  in  flesh  and  blood, 
Thinks  it  no  robbery  to  claim 
A  full  equality  with  God. 
Their  glory  shines  with  equal  beams,"  &c. 

Book  II.,  H  51 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   193 

or  he  was  "  equal  with  God "  (the  latter  words 
being  correctly  understood) ;  because  he  was  a 
minister  in  the  hands  of  God,  wholly  under  his 
direction  ;  because  his  words  were  the  words  of 
God,  his  miracles,  the  works  of  the  Father  who 
sent  him,  and  his  authority  as  a  teacher  and  legis- 
lator, that  of  the  Almighty,  not  human,  but  divine. 
Yet  notwithstanding  that  he  bore  the  high  char- 
acter of  God's  messenger  and  representative  to 
men,  with  all  the  powers  connected  with  it,  he 
was  not  eager  to  display  that  character,  or  exer- 
cise those  powers,  for  the  sake  of  any  personal 
advantage,  or  of  assuming  any  rank  or  splendor 
corresponding  to  his  pre-eminence  over  all  other 
men.  "  Being  rich,  for  our  sakes  he  became 
poor."*  He  divested  himself  as  it  were  of  his 
powers,  lowered  himself  to  the  condition  of  com- 
mon men,  lived  as  they  live,  exposed  to  their 
deprivations  and  sufferings,  and  voluntarily,  as  if 
weak  as  they,  submitted  to  an  ignominious  and 
torturing  death.  —  When  it  is  affirmed  that  Christ 
made  himself  as  a  servant,  these  words  are  illus- 
trated by  those  which  he  himself  used,  while  in- 
culcating, like  the  Apostle,  the  virtues  of  humility 
and  benevolence,  with  a  like  reference  to  his  own 
example :  "  The  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be 
served,  but  to  serve."  f  It  is  in  imitation  of  this 
example,  that  he  directs  him,  "who  would  be 
chief  among  his  disciples,  to  become  the  servant 
of  all."  } 

•  [2  Cor.  viii.  9.]  t  Matthew  xx.  28.  J  [Mark  x.44.] 


194       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

I  PROCEED  to  another  example.  It  is  the  mis- 
translation of  the  word  alwves  by  the  English  word 
"  worlds,"  in  the  commencement  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.*  For  giving  this  sense  to  the  origi- 
nal term,  there  is  not,  I  think,  any  authority  to  be 
found  either  in  Hellenistic  or  classic  Greek.  It 
was  not  so  used  till  long  after  the  composition 
of  this  Epistle.  In  the  theological  dialect  of  Chris- 
tians, this  sense  was  assigned  to  it  in  reference  to 
the  present  passage  and  to  another  in  this  Epistle 
(Ch.  xi.  3) ;  and  the  corresponding  Latin  word  scecu- 
lum  acquired  the  same  meaning.  The  Greek  word 
alwv  was  used  to  denote  a  space  of  time  of  con- 
siderable length,  leaving  its  precise  limits  unde- 
fined. Hence  it  denotes,  secondarily,  tho  state  of 
things  existing  during  such  a  period.  In  this  sense 
it  often  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  We  use 
the  word  age  in  a  like  signification,  employing  it 
to  denote  the  men  of  a  particular  period,  consid- 
ered in  reference  to  their  circumstances  and  char- 
acter, as  when  we  speak  of  the  "  manners  of  an 
age,"  "  the  learning  of  an  age,"  &c.  So,  likewise, 
the  word  time  is  used,  though,  by  an  idiom  of  our 
language,  rather  in  the  plural  than  the  singular,  as 
in  the  phrase,  "  the  times  of  the  Messiah."  Shake- 
speare, however,  says  in  the  singular,  "  the  time  is 

*  There  can  be  no  reason  for  not  explaining  the  passages  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  which  I  believe  to  have  been  misunderstood, 
though  I  do  not  regard  the  Epistle  as  the  work  of  St.  Paul  or  any 
other  Apostle.  My  reasons  for  this  opinion  I  have  formerly  given 
in  the  Christian  Examiner  (Vols.  IV.,  V.,  VI.),  in  a  series  of  articles 
which  I  may,  perhaps,  at  some  time  republish. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       19»» 

out  of  joint,"*  meaning,  "the  present  state  of  things 
is  in  disorder." 

In  the  passage  under  consideration,  alwves, "  ages," 
most  probably,  I  think,  denotes  the  "  different  states 
of  things  which,  in  successive  periods,  would  result 
from  Christianity."  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  it  is  used,  I  suppose,  in  the  same  sense,  Ch. 
iii.  ver.  11,  Kara  irpoOecnv  TWV  aiwvcov  rjv  eTroiyaev 
ev  Xpi&Tw  'Iqa-ov  rat  /cvpiy  fawv,  "  conformably  to 
a  disposition  of  the  ages  which  he  has  made  by 
Christ  Jesus  our  Lord " ;  f  and  probably  also  in 
the  same  Epistle  (ii.  7)  where  the  Apostle  speaks 
of  the  favor  of  God  that  will  be  manifested  "  in  the 
ages  to  come."  In  these  passages,  as  well  as  in 
that  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  refer- 
ence, I  presume,  extends  beyond  this  life  to  the 
future  condition  of  Christians,  to  "  the  ages  "  after 
death.  $  Thus,  then,  I  would  render  and  explain 
the  meaning  of  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  in  the 
first  five  verses  of  this  Epistle :  — 

"  God,  who  at  different  times  and  in  different 
ways  formerly  spoke  to  our  fathers  by  the  Proph- 
ets, has  at  last  spoken  to  us  by  his  Son,  whom 

*  [Hamlet,  Act  I.  Sc.  V.] 

t  Not,  as  in  the  Common  Version,  "  according  to  the  eternal  pur. 
pose,  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord." 

J  In  Hebrews  xi.  3,  alwves  is  again  translated  "  worlds."  Here  we 
may  render  thus  :  "  Through  faith  we  understand  that  the  ages  have 
been  so  ordered  by  the  power  of  God,  that  what  is  seen  had  not  it* 
origin  in  what  was  conspicuous."  The  meaning  of  the  writer  I  con- 
ceive to  have  been,  that  through  faith  we  believe  that  Christianity 
with  all  its  results  is  to  be  referred  to  the  power  of  God,  not  having 
liad  its  origin  in  any  state  of  things  previously  existing. 
21* 


196       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

he  has  appointed  heir  of  all,*  through  whom  also 
he  has  given  form  to  the  ages,f  who  being  a  reflec- 
tion of  his  glory,  and  an  image  of  his  perfections, 
and  ruling  all  things  with  authority  from  him,J 
after  having  cleansed  us  from  our  sins  by  himself 
alone,  §  has  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  on  high ;  being  as  much  greater  than  the 
angels,  as  the  title  which  he  has  obtained  is  pre- 
eminent above  theirs.  For  to  which  of  the  angels 
did  God  ever  say,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have 
I  made  thee  so  ?  And  again,  I  will  be  to  him  a  Fa- 
ther, and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son  ?  " 

ANOTHER  passage  which  may  be  mentioned  is 
the  conclusion  of  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John,  thus 
rendered  in  the  Common  Version  :  — 

"  And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come, 
and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we  may 
know  him  that  is  true ;  and  we  are  in  him  that  is 
true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the 


*  We  may  suppose  that,  the  preceding  dispensations  of  God  being 
intended  to  prepare  the  way  for  Christianity,  Christ  is  represented 
as  "  heir  of  all "  which  has  been  accomplished  by  them  ;  or  the  figu- 
rative term  heir  may  be  used  with  reference  to  the  title  of  Son  im- 
mediately before  given  to  Christ,  and  "  heir  of  all "  may  be  equiv- 
alent to  "  Lord  of  all,"  denoting  that  Christ  has  been  appointed  "  head 
over  all "  in  the  Christian  dispensation. 

t  Or,  in  other  words,  "  has  given  form  to  what  exists  and  is  to  ex 
ist,"  as  the  results  of  Christianity. 

J  Read  avrou,  and  not  ai»rot!,  as  is  suggested,  and  almost  required, 
by  the  occurrence  of  avrov  in  the  preceding  clause,  and  by  the  use  of 
favrov  immediately  after  without  the  insertion  of  <ai 

§  That  is,  without  the  intervention  of  the  sacrifices  of  the  Jewish 
law 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  197 

God  and  eternal  life.  Little  children,  keep 
yourselves  from  idols." 

According  to  the  Trinitarian  exposition  of  these 
words,  the  true  God  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  the 
two  persons,  who  are  so  clearly  distinguished  by 
St.  John,  are  one  being.  But  the  appearance  of 
a  Trinitarian  meaning  is  the  result  of  a  false 
translation,  particularly  of  the  improper  insertion 
of  the  word  "  even."  The  passage  may  be  thus 
rendered.  Its  sense  may  be  made  clearer  by  going 
back  a  little,  and  beginning  at  verse  18. 

"  We  know  that  whoever  is  born  of  God  avoids 
sin;  the  child  of  God  guards  himself,  and  the 
Wicked  One  cannot  touch  him.  We  are  as- 
sured that  we  are  of  God,  and  that  the  whole 
world  is  subject  to  the  Wicked  One.  And  we 
are  assured  that  the  Son  of  God  has  come,  and 
has  given  us  understanding  to  know  Him  who  is 
True.  And  we  are  with  Him  who  is  True  through 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  He  is  the  True  God,  and 
eternal  life.  Children,  keep  yourselves  from  idols." 

The  meaning  is,  that  He  with  whom  Christians 
are,  He  who  is  True,  is  the  True  God,  and  the 
giver  of  eternal  life.*  In  the  former  part  of  the 

*  [Compare  verse  1 1 .  The  pronoun  translated  "  He  "  by  Mr.  Nor- 
ton, or  u  This  "  in  the  Common  Version,  is  regarded  as  referring  to 
"Him  who  is  True"  by  the  most  unprejudiced  interpreters,  whether 
Trinitarian  or  Unitarian ;  among  others,  by  Erasmus,  Grotius,  Wet- 
stein,  Michaelis,  Morus,  Abp.  Newcome,  Rosenmuller,  Jaspis,  Schott, 
Winer  (Gram.  $  23.  1),  Liicke,  De  Wette,  Neander,  Huther,  Meyer 
(on  Rom.  ix.  5,  2d  ed.),  and  Hofrnann  (Schriftbeweis,  I.  128).  The 
pronoun  OVTOS  often  refers  not  to  the  nearest  preceding  noun,  but  to 
*  remoter  antecedent,  more  prominent  in  the  mind  of  the  writer.  See 
2  John  7,  Acts  iv.  11,  and  the  Lexicons  of  the  N.  T.  sub  voce. 


198      EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

passage  St.  John  expresses  the  Jewish  conception 
of  the  personality  and  power  of  Satan.  To  him, 
the  Wicked  One,  he  regarded  the  heathen  world 
as  subject ;  while  believers  were  through  Christ 
with  Him  who  is  True,  the  True  God.  They 
were,  therefore,  to  keep  themselves  from  idols. 

Should  it  be  said  that  these  ideas  are  not  happi- 
ly expressed,  I  answer,  it  is  evident  that  the  author 
of  this  Epistle  was  as  unskilful  a  writer  as  we 
might  expect  to  find  one  originally  a  Galilsean 
fisherman ;  and  should  it  be  brought  as  an  objec- 
tion against  his  being  an  inspired  Apostle,  that  he 
adopted  a  popular  error  of  his  countrymen  respect- 
ing the  existence  and  power  of  a  being,  the  sup- 
posed author  of  evil,  I  would  ask  in  return,  how, 
if  he  were  not  an  inspired  Apostle,  one  thus  ex- 
posed in  common  with  others  to  the  errors  of  his 
age,  rose  so  high  above  his  contemporaries  in 
his  comprehension  of  the  ESSENTIAL  truths  of  re- 
ligion ? 

With  the  passage  quoted  from  St.  John  may  be 
compared  the  words  of  his  Master,  which  he  had 
previously  recorded :  "  And  this  is  eternal  life,  to 
know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  thou  hast  sent."  *  After  having  recorded 
these  words,  with  what  amazement  would  he  have 
been  seized,  had  it  been  revealed  to  him  that  an 
epistle  of  his  own  would  be  interpolated  in  one 
place,  and  its  meaning  perverted  in  another,  for 
the  sake  of  proving  a  doctrine,  about  to  be  gener- 
ally received  by  Christians,  that  he  who  thus  ad- 

*  John  xvii.  3. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   199 

dressed  the  only  true  God,  that  he  whom  God  had 
sent,  was  himself  the  only  true  God ! 

To  the  class  of  mistranslations  are  likewise  to 
be  referred  those  passages  which,  on  account  of 
the  omission  of  the  Greek  article,  have  been  so 
rendered  as  to  apply  to  Christ  the  title  of  "  God." 
These,  however,  are  in  this  particular  correctly 
translated  in  the  Common  Version.  As  the  ques- 
tion is  purely  a  critical  one,  I  will  place  the  re- 
marks to  be  made  upon  it  in  a  note.* 

*  The  argument  for  the  deity  of  Christ  founded  upon  the  omis 
sion  of  the  Greek  article  was  revived  and  brought  into  notice  in  the 
last  century  by  Granville  Sharp,  Esq.  He  applied  it  to  eight  texts 
which  will  be  hereafter  mentioned.  The  last  words  of  Ephesians 
v.  5  may  afford  an  example  of  the  construction  on  which  the  argu- 
ment is  founded : 

ev  TTJ  /3a(riAeia  roO  XpioroC  /cat  GeoiJ. 

From  the  article  being  inserted  before  Xpiarrov  and  omitted  before 
GeoG,  Mr.  Sharp  infers  that  both  names  relate  to  the  same  person, 
and  renders,  "  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  our  God."  Conformably  to 
the  manner  in  which  he  understands  it,  it  might  be  rendered,  "in  the 
kingdom  of  him  who  is  Christ  and  God."  The  proper  translation  I 
suppose  to  be  that  of  the  Common  Version,  "  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
and  of  God,"  or  "  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  and  of  God." 

The  argument  of  Sharp  is  defended  by  Bishop  Middleton  in  his 
Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Article.  By  attending  to  the  rule  laid  down 
by  him,  with  its  limitations  and  exceptions,  we  shall  be  able  to  judge 
of  its  applicability  to  the  passages  in  question.  His  rule  is  this :  — 

"When  two  or  more  attributives,  joined  by  a  copulative  or  copula- 
tives, are  assumed  of  [relate  to]  the  same  person  or  thing,  before  the 
first  attributive  the  article  is  inserted,  before  the  remaining  ones  it  is 
omitted."  (pp.  79,  80  ) 

By  attributives,  he  understands  adjectives,  participles,  and  nouns 
which  are  significant  of  character,  relation,  and  dignity. 

The  limitations  and  exceptions  to  the  rule  stated  by  him  are  as 
follows :  — 


200       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

To  the  class  of  mistranslations  might  strictly  be 
referred  a  very  large  part  of  all  the  passages  ad- 
duced by  Trinitarians,  as  will  appear  from  what 

I.  There  is  no  similar  rule  respecting  "  names  of  substances  con- 
sidered as  substances."     Thus  we  may  say  6  \idos  KOI  xpv<rdi,  without 
repeating  the  article  before  xpucrds,  though  we  speak  of  two  different 
substances.     The  reason  of  this  limitation  of  the  rule  is  stated  to  be 
that  "distinct  real  essences  cannot  be  conceived  to  belong  to  the 
same  thing";  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  same  thing  cannot  be  sup- 
posed to  be  two  different  substances.  —  In  this  case,  then,  it  appears 
that  the  article  is  not  repeated,  because  its  repetition  is  not  necessary  to 
prevent  ambiguity.     This  is  the  true  principle  which  accounts  for  all 
the  limitations  and  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  are  stated  by  Bishop 
Middleton  and  others.     It  is  mentioned  thus  early,  that  the  principle 
may  be  kept  in  mind ;  and  its  truth  may  be  remarked  in  the  other 
cases  of  limitation  or  of  exception  to  be  quoted. 

II.  No  similar  rule  applies  to  proper  names.     "The  reason,"  says 
Middleton,  "  is  evident  at  once ;  for  it  is  impossible  that  John  and 
Thomas,  the  names  of  two  distinct  persons,  should  be  predicated  of  an 
individual."  (p.  86.)    This  remark  is  not  to  the  purpose  ;  for  the  same 
individual  may  have  two  names.     The  true  reason  for  this  limitation 
is,  that  proper  names,  when  those  of  the  same  individual,  are  not 
connected  by  a  copulative  or  copulatives,  and  therefore  that,  when 
they  are  thus  connected,  no  ambiguity  arises  from  the  omission  of  the 
article. 

III.  "  Nouns,"  says  Middleton,  "  which  are  the  names  of  abstract 
ideas,  are  also  excluded ;   for,  as  Locke  has  well  observed,  '  Every 
distinct  abstract  idea  is  a  distinct  essence,  and  the  names  which  stand 
for  such  distinct  ideas  are  the  names  of  things  essentially  different.'" 
(Ibid.)    It  would  therefore,  he  reasons,  be  contradictory  to  suppose  that 
any  quality  were  at  once  aTTftpia  and  aTratSeucria.     But  the  names  of 
abstract  ideas  are  used  to  denote  personal  qualities,  and  the  same  per- 
sonal qualities,  as  they  are  viewed  under  different  aspects,  may  be 
denoted  by  different  names.     The  reason  assigned  by  Middleton  is 
therefore  without  force.     The  true  reason  for  the  limitation  is,  that 
usually  no  ambiguity  arises  from  the  omission  of  the  article  before 
words  of  the  class  mentioned. 

IV.  The  rule,  it  is  further  conceded,  is  not  of  universal  application 
as  it  resf  ecti  vlurals ;  for,  says  Middleton,  "  Though  one  individual 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       201 

follows;  but  my  purpose  under  the  present  head 
has  been  to  remark  only  on  a  few,  in  which  the 
error  is  more  gross  than  usual,  or  the  misuse  of 

may  act,  and  frequently  does  act,  in  several  capacities,  it  is  not  likely 
that  a  multitude  of  individuals  should  all  of  them  act  in  the  same  sev- 
eral capacities  :  and,  by  the  extreme  improbability  that  they  should  be 
represented  as  so  acting,  we  may  be  forbidden  to  understand  the  sec- 
ond plural  attributive  of  the  persons  designed  in  the  article  prefixed 
to  the  first,  however  the  usage  in  the  singular  might  seem  to  counte- 
nance the  construction."  (p.  90.) 

V.  Lastly,  "  we  find,"  he  says,  "  in  very  many  instances,  not  only 
in  the  plural,  but  even  in  the  singular  number,  that  where  attributives 
are  in  their  nature  absolutely  incompatible,  i.  e.  where  the  application 
of  the  rule  would  involve  a  contradiction  in  terms,  there  the  first 
attributive  only  has  the  article,  the  perspicuity  of  the  passage  not  re- 
quiring the  rule  to  be  accurately  observed"  ( p.  92.) 

Having  thus  laid  down  the  rule,  with  its  limitations  and  exceptions, 
Bishop  Middleton  applies  it  to  some  of  the  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  adduced  by  Mr.  Sharp  in  proof  of  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
These  were  Acts  xx.  28  (supposing  the  true  reading  to  be  TOV  Kvpiov 
Kal  Geov) ;  Ephes.  v.  5 ;  2  Thess.  i.  12;  1  Tim.  v.  21  (if  Kvpiov 
should  be  retained  in  the  text) ;  2  Tim.  iv.  1  (if  we  read  TOV  GfoO 
KU\  Kvpiov) ',  Titus  ii.  13 ;  2  Peter  i.  1  ;  Jude  4  (supposing  Qfov 
to  belong  to  the  text).  In  four  of  these  eight  texts,  the  reading 
adopted  to  bring  them  within  the  rule  is  probably  spurious,  as  may 
be  seen  by  referring  to  Griesbach ;  and  they  are  in  consequence  either 
given  up,  or  not  strongly  insisted  upon,  by  Middleton.  In  one  of 
the  remaining,  2  Thess.  i.  12,  the  reading  is  Kara  rfjv  \apiv  TOV  9eov 
fipwv  /ecu  Kvpiov  'irjffov  Xptorou.  Of  this  Middleton  is  "  disposed  to 
think  that  it  affords  no  certain  evidence  in  favor  of  Mr  Sharp,"  be- 
cause he  "  believes  that  Kvpios  in  the  form  of  Kvpios  'Irjo~ovs  XpKrr6s 
became  as  a  title  so  incorporated  with  the  proper  name  as  to  be  sub- 
ject to  the  same  law."  (pp.  554,  564.)  The  three  remaining  texts  are 
those  on  which  he  principally  relies. 

By  the  application  of  the  rule  to  the  passage  last  mentioned,  it  Is 
inferred  that  Christ  is  called  "  God,"  and  '  the  great  God"  ;  and  it  is 
affirmed  that  the  rule  requires  us  to  understand  these  titles  as  applied 
to  him.  The  general  answer  to  this  reasoning  is  as  follows 

It  appears  by  comparing  the  rule  with  its  exceptions  and  limita 


202       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

which  has  principally  arisen  from  their  being  in- 
correctly rendered.  As  may  readily  be  supposed, 
the  different  classes  of  texts  that  I  have  formed 

tions,  that  it  in  fact  amounts  tc  nothing  more  than  this :  that  when  sub- 
stantives, adjectives,  or  participles  are  connected  together  by  a  cop- 
ulative or  copulatives,  if  the  first  have  the  article,  it  is  to  be  omitted 
before  those  which  follow,  when  they  relate  to  the  same  person  or 
thing;  and  is  to  be  inserted,  when  they  relate  to  different  persons 
or  things,  EXCEPT  when  this  fact  is  sufficiently  determined  by  some 
other  circumstance.  The  same  rule  exists  respecting  the  use  of  the 
definite  article  in  English. 

The  principle  of  exception  just  stated  is  evidently  that  which  runs 
through  all  the  limitations  and  exceptions  which  Middleton  has  laid 
down  and  exemplified,  and  is  in  itself  perfectly  reasonable.  When, 
from  any  other  circumstance,  it  may  be  clearly  understood  that  dif- 
ferent persons  or  things  are  spoken  of,  then  the  insertion  or  omission 
of  the  article  is  a  matter  of  indifference. 

But  if  this  be  true,  no  argument  for  the  deity  of  Christ  can  be 
drawn  from  the  texts  adduced.  With  regard  to  this  doctrine,  the 
main  question  is,  whether  it  were  taught  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles, 
and  received  by  their  immediate  disciples.  Antitrinitarians  maintain 
that  it  was  not;  and  consequently  maintain  that  no  thought  of  it  was 
ever  entertained  by  the  Apostles  and  first  believers.  But  if  this  sup- 
position be  correct,  the  insertion  of  the  article  in  these  texts  was 
wholly  unnecessary.  No  ambiguity  could  result  from  its  omission. 
The  imagination  had  not  entered  the  minds  of  men,  that  God  and 
Christ  were  the  same  person.  The  Apostles  in  writing,  and  then 
converts  in  reading,  the  passages  in  question,  could  have  no  more 
conception  of  one  person  only  being  understood,  in  consequence  of 
the  omission  of  the  article,  than  of  supposing  but  one  substance 
to  be  meant  by  the  terms  6  \i0os  KOL  xpvo-or,  on  account  of  the 
omission  of  the  article  before  ^puo-oy.  These  texts,  therefore,  cannot 
be  brought  to  disprove  the  Antitrinitarian  supposition,  because  this 
supposition  must  be  proved  false,  before  these  texts  can  be  taken 
from  the  exception  and  brought  under  the  operation  of  the  rule. 
The  truth  of  the  supposition  accounts  for  the  omission  of  the 
article. 

[On  the  subject  of  this  note,  one  may  further  consult  the  able  tract 
of  the  Rev.  Calvin  Winstanley,  entitled  "  A  Vindication  of  certain 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT,       203 

un  into  each  other ;  the  misinterpretation  of  a 
passage  not  unfrequently  having  its  origin  in 
more  than  one  cause.* 


CLASS    III. 

Passages  relating  to   God,  which  have  been  incoi* 
rectly  applied  to  Christ. 

THE  first  which  I  shall  mention  belongs  likewise 
to  the  head  of  mistranslations.  It  is  Romans  ix.  5, 
thus  rendered  in  the  Common  Version  :  "  Whose 

Passages  in  the  Common  English  Version  of  the  New  Testament. 
Addressed  to  Granville  Sharp,  Esq.";  published  in  1805,  and  re- 
printed, with  additions,  at  Cambridge  (Mass.)  in  1819.  See  also  an 
essay  by  Professor  Stuart,  entitled  "  Hints  and  Cautions  respecting 
the  Greek  Article,"  in  the  Biblical  Repository  for  April  1834;  and 
the  Rev.  T.  S.  Green's  "  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament  Dialect," 
(London,  1842,)  p.  205,  seqq.,  —  a  work  containing  many  acute  ob- 
servations. Winer,  in  his  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament  Idiom, 
$  18.  5,  shows  that  there  is  no  ground  for  the  inference  which  Mid- 
dleton  and  others  would  draw  from  the  omission  of  the  article  in 
Titus  ii.  13  and  Jude  4.] 

*  [It  may  here  be  proper  to  notice  the  gross  mistranslation  of 
Hebrews  ii.  16,  which  reads,  "  For  verily  he  took  not  on  him  the  na- 
ture of  angels ;  but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham."  The 
Italics  are  those  of  the  Common  Version,  the  words  thus  printed 
being  a  wholly  unauthorized  addition  of  the  translators.  The  verse 
should  be  rendered:  "For  he,  truly,  does  not  give  aid  to  angels 
[i.  e.  is  not  the  Saviour  of  angels] ;  but  he  gives  aid  to  the  offspring 
of  Abraham."  The  passage  is  thus  understood  by  all  modern  inter- 
preters of  any  note.  —  It  may  also  be  remarked,  that  in  the  14th 
verse  of  the  same  chapter  "  took  part  of"  is  improperly  used  for 
•'  partook  of,"  "  shared."] 


204       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom  as  concerning  the 
flesh  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for 
ever.  Amen." 

It  must,  one  would  think,  strike  a  Trinitarian, 
who  maintains  the  correctness  of  this  construction 
and  rendering,  as  a  very  extraordinary  fact,  that 
the  title  of  "  God  over  all  blessed  for  ever,"  which 
is  nowhere  else  given  to  Christ,  should  be  intro- 
duced thus  incidentally  and  abruptly,  without  ex- 
planation or  comment,  and  without  any  use  being 
made  of  the  doctrine.  The  supposed  fact  appears 
still  more  extraordinary  and  unaccountable,  when 
we  recollect  that  one  main  purpose  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  was  to  meet  the  prejudices  and 
errors  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  respecting  Chris- 
tianity; and  that  the  doctrine  which  the  Apostle 
is  imagined  to  have  asserted  so  briefly  and  ex- 
plicitly, and  then  to  have  left  without  attempting 
to  clear  it  from  a  single  objection,  must  have  been 
in  the  highest  degree  obnoxious  to  them  ;  and  one, 
therefore,  which,  in  consistency  with  the  design  of 
the  Epistle,  required  the  fullest  illustration  and 
defence.  In  the  second  century,  Justin  Martyr, 
though  far  irtdeed  from  affirming  that  Christ  was 
"  God  over  all,"  maintained  that  he  was  "  another 
god,"  the  Logos  of  the  Supreme.  In  the  Dialogue 
which  he  represents  himself  as  having  held  with  an 
unbelieving  Jew,  Trypho,  in  defence  of  Christian- 
ity, he  brings  forward  views  and  arguments  similar 
to  those  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans ;  but  in  ad- 
dition to  these  we  find  a  new  topic,  the  deity  of 
Christ,  occupying  a  great  part  of  the  discussion. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   205 

if  the  doctrine  had  been  maintained  by  St.  Paul, 
as  it  was  by  Justin,  one  would  think  that,  in  an- 
swering the  objections  ot  the  Jews,  it  would  have 
been  as  necessary  for  the  Apostle,  as  for  Justin,  to 
explain  and  defend  it.  The  sentiments  of  the 
Jews  concerning  it,  which  undoubtedly  would 
have  been  as  strong  in  the  time  of  St.  Paul  as 
they  were  a  century  later,  appear  from  the  words 
which  Justin  ascribes  to  Trypho :  "  You  under- 
take to  prove  an  incredible  and  almost  impossible 
thing,  —  that  a  god  submitted  to  be  born  and  to 
become  a  man."  *  "  As  for  what  you  say,  that 
this  Christ  existed  as  a  god  before  time  was,  and 
afterwards  becoming  a  man,  submitted  to  be  born, 
and  that  he  was  born  out  of  the  common  course  of 
nature,  it  seems  to  me  not  only  paradoxical,  but 
foolish."!  "All  we  [Jews],"  says  Trypho  in  an- 
other place,  "  expect  that  the  Messiah  will  be  a 
man  born  of  human  parents."  J  The  whole  argu- 
ment of  St.  Paul  in  opposition  to  the  prejudices  of 
the  unbelieving  Jews  must  have  been  incomplete 
and  unsatisfactory,  if  he  asserted  this  "incredible 
and  almost  impossible  "  doctrine  in  the  clause  of 
a  sentence  without  attempting  any  vindication  of 
its  truth. 

The  passage  has,  I  believe,  no  bearing  whatever 
upon  the  doctrine  which  it  has  been  adduced  to 
prove.  The  fact  is  well  known,  that  the  present 
pointing  of  the  New  Testament  is  of  no  authority ; 

*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  283,  ed.  Thirlb.  [c.  68  p.  292,  D.  ed.  Moral.] 
t  Ibid.,  p.  233.  [al  c.  48.  p.  267,  B.] 
t  Ibid.,  p.  235.  [aL  C.  49.  p.  268,  A.] 


206       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

the  more  ancient  manuscripts  having  been  un- 
pointed ;  and  the  points  which  we  now  find  hav- 
ing been  introduced  by  later  transcribers  and  by 
editors.  Let  any  one,  then,  turn  to  the  passage  in 
his  Greek  Testament,  and  put  a  dot  at  the  top  of 
the  line  (equivalent  to  a  semicolon)  after  o-ap/ca 
instead  of  a  comma,  as  at  present,  and  a  comma 
after  TravTcov,  and  he  will  perceive  that  the  follow- 
ing meaning  immediately  results :  "  He  who  was 
over  all  was  God  blessed  for  ever." 

"  He  who  was  over  all,"  that  is,  over  all  which 
has  just  been  mentioned  by  the  Apostle.  The 
rapidity  of  expression  in  the  original,  however, 
does  not  fully  appear  in  such  a  rendering ;  because 
in  our  language  we  are  obliged  to  supply  the 
ellipsis  of  the  substantive  verb.  It  may  be  imi- 
tated, however,  by  employing  the  participle  instead 
of  the  verb.  Doing  this,  I  will  give  what  seems 
to  me  a  more  correct  translation  of  the  passage, 
and  of  its  context,  than  that  in  the  Common 
Version :  — 

"  —  My  brothers,  my  natural  kinsmen  ;  who  are 
Israelites,  whose  was  the  glory  of  being  adopted  as 
sons,  whose  were  the  covenants,  and  the  Law,  and 
the  service  of  the  temple,  and  the  promises  ;  whose 
were  the  fathers,  and  from  among  whom  the  Mes- 
siah was  to  be  born ;  he  who  was  over  all  being 
God  blessed  for  ever.  Amen." 

This  conclusion,  as  every  one  must  perceive,  is 
in  the  highest  degree  proper  and  natural.  Among 
the  privileges  and  distinctions  of  the  Jews,  it  could 
not  be  forgotten  by  the  Apostle,  that  God  had  pre- 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   207 

sid^d  over  all  their  concerns  in  a  particular  man- 
ner. With  regard  to  the  ellipsis  of  the  substantive 
\erb,  which  we  have  supposed,  nothing  is  more 
common.  In  the  five  verses,  including  the  verse 
we  are  considering,  between  the  3d  and  9th,  it 
occurs  at  least  six  times.* 

*  The  following  texts,  to  which  many  others  might  be  added, 
afford  examples  of  a  similar  ambiguity  of  construction  in  the  writ- 
ings of  St.  Paul  from  the  omission  of  the  substantive  verb:  Ro- 
mans viii.  33,  34  ;  x.  12;  1  Cor.  i.  26;  2  Cor.  iii.  14  (^  ai/aKaXuTrro- 
JKVOV  for  eo-Tt  yap  /J-TJ  araKaXuTrroyiei/oi/) ;  2  Cor.  v.  5 ;  Ephes.  iv.  4 
(comp.  5) ;  Coloss.  ii.  17. 

[Considering  the  importance  which  has  been  attached  to  this  pas- 
gage,  and  the  different  explanations  which  have  been  given  of  it  by 
distinguished  scholars,  a  few  additional  remarks  will  perhaps  be  par- 
doned. 

The  past  privileges  of  the  Jews  being  referred  to  by  the  Apostle, 
Mr.  Norton  has  used  the  past  tense  in  supplying  the  ellipsis  of  the 
substantive  verb.  So  Conybeare  and  Howson,  in  their  recent  work 
on  St.  Paul,  with  Locke,  Taylor,  Wakefield,  our  countryman  Charles 
Thomson,  Semler,  Stolz,  and  other  translators  and  commentators. 
The  past  tense  of  the  verb  should  similarly  be  supplied  in  1  Cor.  xv. 
47,  48,  though  the  authors  of  the  Common  Version  have  improperly 
used  the  present.  As  the  present  participle  denotes  present  time  not 
absolutely,  but  relatively  to  the  time  of  the  leading  verb  of  the  sen- 
tence, or  to  the  time,  whatever  it  may  be,  which  the  writer  has  in 
mind,  there  can  of  course  be  no  objection,  if  this  view  of  the  ellipsis 
is  correct,  to  rendering  6  <av  eV!  Trdvratv  "  he  who  was  over  all." 
(See  John  xii.  17,  and  Winer,  Gram,  des  neutest.  Sprachidioms, 
{  46.  6.)  It  has,  indeed,  been  contended  by  some  critics,  as  Noesselt 
and  Flatt,  that  6  u>v  must  refer  to  Xpioros  as  the  antecedent,  and  be 
rendered  "  who  is  " ;  as  if  the  article  6  with  a>v  or  any  other  parti- 
ciple could  not  form  the  subject  of  an  independent  proposition.  It 
can  hardly  be  necessary  to  refer  to  such  passages  as  John  iii.  31, 
vi.  46,  viii.  47,  Rom.  viii.  5,  8,  etc.,  to  prove  a  fact  which  belongs  to 
the  elements  of  Greek  grammar. 

In  the  first  part  of  the  fifth  verse,  Mr.  Norton  has  translated  «£  &v 
6  Xpiaros  TO  Kara  trap/ea, "  from  among  whom  the  Messiah  was  to  b« 
22* 


208       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  passage  was  at  an  early  period  applied  to 
Christ,  particularly  by  the  Latin  Fathers.  With 
the  notions,  however,  of  the  earlier  Christians,  ie- 
specting  the  inferiority  of  the  Son  to  the  Father, 
the  passage,  when  thus  constructed,  presented  a 
difficulty  as  well  as  an  argument.  Hippolytus,* 

born. '  The  verbal  rendering  is,  "  from  whom  [was]  the  Messiah  as 
to  the  flesh."  It  has  been  urged  by  many  Trinitarians  that  the 
phrase  "  as  to  the  flesh,"  which  they  would  render  "  as  to  his  human 
nature,"  implies  that  Christ  possessed  also  a  higher  nature,  namely, 
the  divine ;  and  that  it  is  necessary  to  understand  the  last  part  of  the 
verse  as  referring  to  him,  to  complete  the  antithesis.  Let  us  exam- 
ine these  points.  In  the  third  verse  of  this  chapter  Paul  speaks  of 
his  "  kinsmen  as  to  the  flesh."  Did  Paul  or  his  countrymen  have  also 
a  divine  nature?  In  1  Cor.  x.  18  we  find  the  words,  "Behold  Israel 
as  to  the  flesh" ;  or,  to  translate  more  freely,  "Look  at  those  who  are 
Israelites  by  natural  descent " ;  that  is,  in  distinction  from  Chris- 
tians, the  spiritual  Israel,  the  true  people  of  God.  See  also  Gala- 
tians  iv.  23,  29,  and  compare  the  eighth  verse  of  the  present  chapter. 
The  phrase  Kara  crdpKa  is  a  common  one  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 
in  reference  to  natural  descent,  or  to  other  outward  circumstances 
and  relations,  in  distinction  from  what  is  spiritual.  It  certainly  sug- 
gests an  antithesis ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  antithesis  must  be 
expressed,  as  is  manifest  from  the  first  two  passages  quoted  above. 
It  was  not  to  the  Apostle's  purpose,  in  this  enumeration  of  the  pecu- 
liar distinctions  of  the  Jews,  to  supply  the  antithesis.  It  was  only 
"as  to  the  flesh"  that  Christ  belonged  peculiarly  to  the  Jews.  This 
view  is  confirmed  by  a  passage  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to 
the  Corinthians,  cited  by  Yates  in  his  "  Vindication  of  Unitarianism." 
'E£  ai>Tov  yap  If  pels  KOL  Afiurai  irdmes  ol  \eirovpyovvres  T<£ 
6v(ria(TTr)pia)  roO  Geov  •  e£  avrov  6  Kvptos  'irjo'ovs  TO  Kara  <rapKa  • 
e£  avrov  /SatriXeT?  ical  apxovrfs  KOI  ^you/zei/oi,  Kara  TOV  'lovSav. 
"For  from  him  [Jacob]  were  all  the  priests  and  Levites  who  served 
at  the  altar  of  God ;  from  him  was  the  Lord  Jesus  as  to  the  flesh ; 
from  him  were  kings  and  rulers  and  leaders,  in  the  line  of  Judah.1' 
(Cap.  32.  Patr.  Apost.  Opp.  ed.  Hefele,  p.  98,  ed.  tert.)  If  Clement 

*  Contra  Noe'tum,  §  6.    Opp.  1. 237 


EXPLANYTIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   209 

or  some  writer  under  that  name,  explains  it  in 
reference  to  the  declaration  of  Christ  rendered  in 
the  Common  Version,  "  All  things  are  delivered 
unto  me  of  my  Father";  conceiving  the  dominion 
over  all  things  not  to  have  been  essentially  inhe- 
rent in  Christ  as  properly  the  Supreme  God,  but 


in  a  passage  so  similar  to  the  present,  did  not  think  it  necessary  to 
express  the  antithesis  implied  in  TO  Kara  <rdpKa,  St.  Paul  may  not 
have  thought  it  necessary  here. 

In  another  place,  however,  the  Apostle  has  supplied  the  antithesis 
suggested  by  the  words  in  question  ;  but  there,  instead  of  describing 
Christ  as  "  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever,"  he  clearly  distinguishes 
him  from  God.  See  the  beginning  of  this  Epistle,  where  he  speaks  of 
himself  as  "  set  apart  to  preach  the  gospel  of  God,"  "the  gospel  con- 
cerning his  Son,  who  was  of  the  race  of  David  by  natural  descent  [ver- 
bally, as  to  the  flesh],  but  clearly  shown  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  as  to  his 
holy  spirit,  by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead."  (I  quote  from  the  un- 
published translation  of  Mr.  Norton.)  Though  this  passage  has  also 
been  brought  to  prove  the  Son  of  God  to  be  God  himself,  it  does 
not  appear  to  call  for  any  remark,  except  perhaps  this :  that  if  any 
doctrine  is  unequivocally  taught  by  St.  Paul,  it  is,  that  the  divine 
power  displayed  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead  was 
not  his  own,  but  the  power  of  God,  the  Father.  See  Acts  xiii. 
30  -  37  ;  xvii.  31  ;  Horn.  iv.  24  ;  vi.  4 ;  viii.  11;  x.  9 ;  1  Cor.  vi.  14 ; 
xv.  15 ;  2  Cor.  iv.  14 ;  xiii.  4 ;  Galat.  i.  1 ;  Ephes.  i.  19,  20 ;  Coloss. 
ii.  12;  1  Thess.i.  10. 

But  to  return  to  our  text.  Among  the  examples  of  the  ellipsis  of 
the  substantive  verb  referred  to  in  Mr.  Norton's  note,  we  find  one  in 
which  the  construction  is  strikingly  similar  to  that  here  supposed,  as 
will  be  seen  on  placing  the  passages  in  juxtaposition :  — 

Romans  ix.  5.  6  <Si/  eVt  Trdvrcov  0eos,  fvXoy^TO?,  K.  T.  \. 

2  Cor.  v.  5.       6  §e  Karcpyao-dpevos  rjpas  els  avrb  rouro  Geoy. 
To  this  may  be  added, 

2  Cor.  i.  21.  6  Se  /3ej3aieoi/  r}fj.af KCU  xpiVas  f)fj.as  Qfos'  and 

Heb.  iii.  4.     6  8«  irdvra  Karao-Kevaa-as  Q(6s- 
The  construction  of  the  passage  thus  illustrated,  though  apparently 
first  suggested  by  Mr.  Norton,  not  only  seems  to  be  liable  to  no  well 


210       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

as  assigned  to  him  by  the  Father.  It  was,  per 
haps,  understood  in  a  similar  manner  by  Novatian, 
who  has  twice  quoted  the  passage,*  but  who  clearly 
did  not  believe  Christ  to  be  the  Supreme  Being. 
Tertullian  says  :  "  We  never  speak  of  two  Gods 
or  two  Lords,  but,  following  the  Apostle,  if  the 

grounded  philological  objection,  but  agrees  admirably  with  the  rapid, 
earnest  style  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  The  ellipsis  of  the  substantive  verb 
when  Qf6s  forms  the  predicate  of  the  sentence,  is  certainly  in  accord 
ance  with  his  usual  manner. 

There  is  another  method,  however,  of  understanding  the  passage, 
proposed  by  Erasmus,  and  since  adopted  by  many  distinguished 
scholars,  according  to  which  the  last  part  of  the  sentence  in  ques- 
tion forms  a  doxology,  a  period  or  colon  being  placed  after  trapped, 
as  by  Mr.  Norton.  It  may  be  observed,  that,  although  in  a  ques- 
tion of  punctuation  manuscripts  are  of  no  authority,  we  actually 
find  a  point  placed  after  aapKa  in  this  passage  in  several  Greek  man- 
uscripts, among  them  the  celebrated  Codex  Ephraemi.  This  punc- 
tuation is  also  followed  by  two  of  the  most  eminent  critical  editors, 
Lachmann  and  Tischendorf.  The  words  may  then  be  rendered,  "He 
who  is  over  all  (or,  He  who  was  over  all),  God,  be  blessed  for  ever!" 
or,  "  God,  who  is  over  all,  be  blessed  for  ever !  Amen."  This  con- 
struction is  adopted  by  Whiston,  Semlcr,  Bohme,  Paulas,  Reiche, 
Glockler,  Winzer,  Kollner,  Meyer,  Fritzsche,  Riickert  (in  his  second 
edition,  though  strongly  opposing  it  in  his  first),  Schrader,  and  Krehl. 
(Many  of  these  names  are  given  on  the  authority-of  Meyer  and  De 
Wette.) 

It  has  been  very  confidently  asserted  by  Stuart  and  others,  that 
this  construction  is  forbidden  by  the  laws  of  grammar,  and  wholly 
inadmissible,  on  the  ground  that,  in  forms  of  doxology  in  the  New 
Testament  and  the  Septuagint,  the  word  fvXoyrjros  always  precedes 
the  subject,  as  we  commonly  say  in  English,  "  Blessed  be  God ! " 
and  not,  "  God  be  blessed  !  "  The  answer  to  this  is,  in  the  first  place, 
that  the  usage  referred  to  is  not  invariable  in  the  Septuagint,  In 
Psalm  Ixvii.  20  (al.  Ixviii.  19),  in  the  first  instance  in  which  it  occurs 
the  subject  precedes :  Kvpios  6  Qeos  evXoyijros,  fvXoyrjrbs  Kvpiot 

*  [De  Trinitate,  cc.  13,  30.] 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   211 

Father  and  Son  are  to  be  named  together,  we  call 
the  Father,  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  Lord."  «  But 
when  speaking  of  Christ  alone,  I  may  call  him 
God,  as  does  the  same  Apostle:  Of  whom  is  Christ, 
who  is  God  over  all  blessed  for  ever.  For  speaking 
of  a  ray  of  the  sun  by  itself,  I  may  call  it  the  sun  ; 

Tjp.(pav  na6*  rjfjifpav.  See  also  Genesis  xxvii.  29,  6  Karapapcvos  at 
eViKaraparos,  6  8e  cl\oywv  (re  cvXoyrjfjifvos,  "  Cursed  be  he  that 
curseth  thee,  and  blessed  be  he  that  blesseth  thee."  Attempts  have 
indeed  been  made  to  get  rid  of  the  passage  in  Psalm  Ixvii.,  by  assert- 
ing that  the  reading  is  corrupt.  But  for  this  there  is  no  critical 
authority.  See  Holmes  and  Parsons's  edition  of  the  Septuagint. 
All  that  can  be  said  is,  that  the  Septuagint  here,  as  often  elsewhere, 
does  not  literally  correspond  with  the  Hebrew,  which  in  this  pas- 
sage the  translator  probably  misunderstood. — In  the  second  place, 
the  question  whether  the  predicate  or  subject  shall  precede  in  Greek 
is  determined,  not  by  any  arbitrary  rule,  but  by  the  comparative  em- 
phasis which  the  writer  intends  to  give  the  one  or  the  other,  and  by 
its  connection  with  other  words  in  the  sentence.  To  write  in  Greek, 
(vXoyrjTos  6  Qfos  6  <ov  cVt  irdvr&v  els  TOVS  aicoi/as,  as  Koppe  and 
others  assert  would  be  necessary  if  Paul  had  intended  to  close  the 
sentence  with  adoxology,  would  be  as  unnatural  as  to  say  in  English, 
"  Blessed  be  God  who  is  over  all  for  ever,"  to  say  nothing  of  the  am- 
biguity thus  created.  On  a  grammatical  point  like  this  there  is  no 
higher  authority  than  Winer,  who,  after  mentioning  the  fact  that  in 
the  doxologies  of  the  Old  Testament  the  predicate  usually  precedes, 
goes  on  to  remark:  "But  only  empirical  interpreters  could  regard 
this  position  as  an  unalterable  rule ;  for  where  the  subject  forms  the 
leading  idea,  particularly  where  it  stands  in  contrast  wlh  another 
subject,  the  predicate  may  and  will  be  placed  after  it,  comp.  Ps.  IxviL 
20.  And  so  also  in  Romans  ix.  5,  if  the  words  6  o>i/  eVl  Trdvrav  Qfbs 
fvXoyrjros,  etc.  are  referred  to  God,  the  position  of  the  words  is  al- 
together suitable,  and  even  necessary."  (Gram,  des  neutest.  Sprach- 
idioms,  §  65.  3,  p.  636,  5te  Aufl.)  The  Trinitarian  Olshausen  also 
says :  "  Ruckert's  remark,  that  evAoyij-ro?,  when  applied  to  God, 
must,  according  to  the  idiom  of  the  Old* and  New  Testament,  always 
precede  is  of  no  importance.  Kollner  rightly  observes,  that  the  po- 
sition  of  the  words  is  altogether  [everywhere]  not  a  mechanical  thing, 


212       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

but  when  I  mention  at  the  same  time  the  sun, 
from  which  this  ray  proceeds,  I  do  not  then  give 
that  name  to  the  latter."  * 

But  it  is  to  be  observed  that  some  of  the  earlier 
Fathers,  especially  the  Greek  Fathers,  expressly 
denied  that  Christ  is  "the  God  over  all."  This 
title  was  applied  to  him  by  the  Sabellians,  and 
was  considered  as  a  distinguishing  mark  of  their 

but  is  rather  determined,  in  each  particular  conjuncture,  by  the  con 
nection,  and  by  the  mind  of  the  speaker."  (Comm.  on  Romans, 
p.  326,  note,  Engl.  Transl.  published  in  Clark's  Foreign  Theol.  Libr.j 

It  may  be  mentioned  that  some  critics,  placing  the  colon  or  period 
after  irdvrav  instead  of  <rapKa,  refer  the  words  "  who  is  over  all "  to 
Christ,  and  make  the  remainder  of  the  verse  a  doxology.  So  Locke, 
Wetstein,  Oertel,  Justi,  Stolz,  Ammon,  Baumgarten-Crusius,  and 
De  Wette  in  his  German  translation  (3d  ed.,  1839),  though  in  his 
Commentary  (4th  ed.,  1847)  he  appears  more  inclined  to  the  con- 
struction just  remarked  upon.  But  this  latter  mode  of  understanding 
the  passage  seems  to  make  the  doxology  too  abrupt,  and  is  exposed 
to  other  objections. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  note  to  discuss  the  question  of  the 
comparative  merits  of  Mr.  Norton's  interpretation,  and  that  which 
regards  the  words  6  &v  eVi  navrav,  etc.,  as  forming  a  doxology.  It  is 
enough  if  it  has  been  shown  that  neither  is  open  to  any  valid  philo- 
logical objection,  and  that  the  pretence  that  the  "laws  of  grammar" 
require  us  to  understand  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  as  referring  to 
Christ  is  groundless.  The  impartial  reader  will  place  a  proper  esti- 
mate on  the  language  of  such  writers  as  Haldane,  who  speaks  of  "  tae 
awful  blindness  and  obstinacy  of  Arians  and  Socinians  in  their  per- 
versions of  this  passage "  as  "  more  fully  manifesting  the  depravity 
of  human  nature,  and  the  rooted  enmity  of  the  carnal  mind  against 
God,  than  the  grossest  works  of  the  flesh."  (Exposition  of  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Romans,  Amer.  reprint  of  the  5th  Edinb.  ed.,  p.  454.)] 

*  "  Solum  autem  Christum  potero  deum  dicere,  sicut  idem  Apos- 
tolus,  Ex  quibus  Christus ;  qui  est,  inquit,  deus  super  omnia,  benedictus 
in  cevum  omne.  Nam  et  radium  solis  seorsum,  solem  vocabo  ;  solera 
autem  nominans  cujus  est  radius,  non  statim  et  radium  solem  appel- 
labo."  —  Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  13. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


213 


heresy.  There  is  no  one  of  the  Fathers  more 
eminent  than  Origen.  "  Supposing,"  says  Origen 
in  his  work  against  Celsus,  "  that  some  among  the 
multitude  of  believers,  likely  as  they  are  to  have 
differences  of  opinion,  rashly  suppose  that  the 
Saviour  is  the  God  over  all ;  yet  we  do  not,  for 
we  believe  him  when  he  said,  '  The  Father  who 
sent  me  is  greater  than  I.'"*  Even  after  the 
Nicene  Council,  Eusebius,  in  writing  against  Mar- 
cellus,  says :  "  As  Marcellus  thinks,  He  who  was 
born  of  the  holy  virgin,  and  clothed  in  flesh,  who 
dwelt  among  men,  and  suffered  what  had  been 
foretold,  and  died  for  our  sins,  was  the  very  God 
over  all ;  for  daring  to  say  which,  the  church  of 
God  numbered  Sabellius  among  atheists  and  blas- 
phemers." f  Now  it  is  incredible  that  the  text  in 
question  should  have  been  overlooked.  But  the 
early  Fathers,  in  making  these,  and  a  multitude  of 
other  similar  declarations,  concerning  the  inferiority 
of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  never  advert  to  it.  It 
evidently  follows  from  this,  that  they  had  not  the 
same  conception  as  modern  Trinitarians  have  of 
the  meaning  of  the  passage.  They  had  read  the 
words  of  the  Apostle  in  which  he  speaks  of  "the 
God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  ia 

•  Origen.  cont.  Gels.,  Lib.  VIII.  §  14.     Opp.  I.  752. 

t  Euseb.  Eccles.  Theol.,  Lib.  II.  c.  4.  This,  and  the  passage  from 
Origen,  are  given  by  Wetstein  in  his  critical  remarks  on  the  text, 
with  other  authorities  to  the  same  purpose.  See  also  Whitby,  Dis- 
quisitiones  Modestse,  passim,  but  particularly  pp.  26,  27,  p.  122,  and 
p.  197,  ed.  secund.  —  For  placing  a  period  after  o-aoxa,  Griesbach 
quotes  the  authority  of  "  many  Fathers  who  denied  that  Christ  could 
be  called  '  the  God  over  all.' " 


214       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

blessed  for  evermore";*  and  the  mystery  of  the 
Trinity  being  as  yet  but  ill  understood,  they  had 
not  made  such  an  advance  in  Orthodoxy  as  to  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  same  being  as  his 
God  and  Father. 

WE  pass  to  Hebrews  i.  10-12.  It  is  unneces- 
sary to  give  the  words  at  length.  This  passage 
belongs  to  the  present  class.  The  words  were 
originally  addressed  by  the  Psalmist  (Psalm  cii.  25) 
not  to  Christ,  but  to  God,  and  are  so  addressed  by 
the  author  of  the  Epistle.f 

*  2  Cor.  xi.  31. 

t  The  following  are  the  remarks  of  Emlyn  :  —  "  Here  we  may 
observe,  that  the  tenth  verse,  And  thou  Lord,  &c.,  (though  it  is  a  new 
citation,)  is  not  prefaced  with,  And  to  the  Son  he  saith,  as  ver.  8,  or 
with  an  again,  as  ver.  5,  6,  and  so  chap.  ii.  13,  but  barely,  And  thou 
Lord.  Now  the  God  last  mentioned  was  Christ's  God,  who  had 
anointed  him  ;  and  the  author  thereupon,  addressing  himself  to  this 
God,  breaks  out  into  the  celebration  of  his  power,  and  especially  his 
unchangeable  duration  ;  which  he  dwells  upon,  as  what  he  princi 
pally  cites  the  text  for ;  in  order,  I  conceive,  to  prove  the  stability  of 
the  Son's  kingdom,  before  spoken  of:  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever 
and  ever ;  God,  thy  God,  has  anointed  thee ;  and  thou,  Lord,  i.  e.  thoa 
who  hast  promised  him  such  a  throne,  art  he  who  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  earth,  and  by  thy  hands  made  the  heavens,  which,  though  of  long 
and  permanent  duration,  yet  will  at  length  perish  ;  but  thou  remainest, 
thou  art  the  same,  thy  years  shall  not  fail.  So  that  it  seems  to  be  a  dec- 
/aration  of  God's  immutability  made  here,  to  ascertain  the  durable- 
Bess  of  Christ's  kingdom,  before  mentioned  ;  and  the  rather  so,  be- 
cause this  passage  had  been  used  originally  for  the  same  purpose  in 
the  102d  Psalm,  viz.  to  infer  thence  this  conclusion,  ver.  ult. :  The 
children  of  thy  servants  shall  continue,  and  their  seed  be  established  before 
*hee.  In  like  manner  it  here  proves  the  Sons  throne  should  be  es- 
tablished for  ever  and  ever,  by  the  same  argument,  viz.  by  God's  im- 
mutability ;  and  so  was  very  pertinently  alleged  of  God,  without 
being  applied  to  the  Son }  to  show  how  able  his  God,  who  had  anoint- 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.     215 


CLASS    IV. 

Passages  that  might  be  considered  as  referring  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  supposing  it  capable 
of  proof  and  proved,  but  which  in  themselves  pre- 
sent no  appearance  of  any  proof  or  intimation  of  it. 

SUCH  is  the  case  with  some  of  those  urged  with 
the  most  confidence;  as  the  form  of  baptism  re 
corded  in  Matthew  (xxviii.  19),  and  thus  rendered 
in  the  Common  Version  :  — 

"  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptiz- 
ing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 

Here,  as  in  many  other  passages,  the  error  and 
obscurity  of  the  version  have  favored  the  imposi- 
tion of  a  sense  upon  the  passage  which  the  original 
does  not  suggest.  "  To  baptize  in  the  name  of  an- 
other" is  to  baptize  by  authority  from  him,  as  his 
representative.  But  this  every  scholar  knows  is  not 
the  sense  of  our  Saviour's  direction.  The  Greek 
word  rendered  "  name  "  is  in  this  passage,  as  often 
in  the  Scriptures,  redundant.  It  is  used  pleonasti- 
cally,  by  an  idiom  of  the  Hebraistic  Greek,  in  which 

ed  him,  was  to  make  good  and  maintain  what  he  had  granted  him, 
viz.  a  durable  kingdom  for  ever"  —  Emlyns  Examination  of  Dr.  Ben- 
ntt's  New  Theory  of  the  Trinity.  Works,  Vol.  II.  pp.  340,  341.  Lon- 
don, 1746. 

Beside  the  purpose  pointed  out  hy  Emlyn,  the  author  of  the  Epis- 
tle may  have  had  another  in  view,  which  was  to  declare,  that  while 
the  throne  of  Christ,  being  upheld  by  God.  should  endure  for  ever, 
the  heavens,  the  local  habitation,  as  they  were  considered,  of  angels, 
should,  on  the  contrary,  perish,  be  rolled  up  as  a  garment  and  changed. 


216     EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

the  Septuagint  and  New  Testament  are  written. 
We  have  not  the  same  turn  of  expression  in  our 
own  language.  In  the  original,  it  adds  nothing 
to  the  sense  of  the  passage.  When  literally  ren- 
dered into  another  language  in  which  the  same 
idiom  does  not  exist,  it  tends  only  to  obscure  the 
meaning.  It  should  not  therefore  appear  in  a 
translation  into  English. 

But  even  if  the  term  "  name  "  be  retained,  there 
is  no  ground  for  the  rendering,  "  baptizing  them  in 
the  name."  The  Greek  preposition  et?  should  here 
be  rendered  to.  The  whole  passage  may  be  thus 
translated :  — 

"  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  na- 
tions; baptizing  them  to  the  Father,  and  to  the 
Son,  and  to  the  holy  spirit." 

The  meaning  of  which  is,  Go  and  make  con- 
verts of  men  of  all  nations,  dedicating  them  by 
baptism,  through  which  they  are  to  make  a  solemn 
public  profession  of  their  faith,  to  the  worship  of 
the  Father,  the  only  true  God,  to  the  religion 
which  he  has  taught  men  by  his  Son,  and  to  the 
enjoyment  of  those  holy  influences  and  spiritual 
blessings  which  accompany  its  reception. 

One  may  easily  understand  how  this  passage 
has  appeared  to  Trinitarians  to  convey  so  clear 
a  notice  of  the  Trinity,  since  they  have  adopted 
its  terms  as  technical  in  their  theology,  and  im- 
posed upon  them  new  and  arbitrary  senses,  which 
have  become  strongly  associated  with  the  words, 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  But  he  who  con- 
tends that  any  proof  of  the  dcctrine  is  to  be  de- 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.      217 

rived  from  it,  must  proceed  altogether  upon  as- 
sumptions obviously  false.  Let  us  state  them 
clearly. 

In  the  first  place,  to  prove  the  personality  of  the 
holy  spirit  from  this  passage,  it  must  either  be  as- 
sumed,— 

That  when  three  objects  are  mentioned  together 
in  a  sentence,  and  two  of  them  are  persons,  the 
third  must  be  a  person  also;*  that  is,  the  Father 
and  Son  being  persons,  the  holy  spirit  must  be  a 
person  also : 

Or,  the  personality  and  deity  of  the  holy  spirit, 
and  the  deity  of  the  Son,  may  all  be  rested  upon 
the  assumption, — 

That  baptism  was  a  rite  of  such  a  character, 
that  to  be  baptized  "in  the  name  of,"  or  "to  the 
name  of,"  or  "  to  "  any  person  or  object,  necessarily 
implies,  that  such  person  or  object  possesses  the 
character  of  God  :  f 

Or,  it  may  be  assumed, — 

That  when  three  persons  or   objects  are   thus 

*  [As  to  the  tcnablcncss  of  this  assumption,  sec  1  Samuel  xxv. 
32,  33  :  41  Blessed  be  the  LOUD  God  of  Israel,  who  sent  thec  this  day 
to  meet  me;  and  blessed  be  thy  advice;  and  blessed  be  thou."  Acts 
xx.  32 :  "I  commend  you  to  God,  and  to  the  word  of  his  grace,  which 
is  able  to  build  you  up,  and  to  give  you  an  inheritance  among  all 
them  which  are  sanctified."  Tobit  xi.  13:  "Blessed  art  thou,  O  God, 
and  blessed  is  thy  name  for  ever  ;  and  blessed  are  all  thine  holy  angels." 
Sec  also  Psalm  Ixxii.  18,  19;  cv.  4;  llosea  iii.  5;  Ephesians  vi.  10.] 

t  [Sec  1  Corinthians  x.  2  :  The  Israelites  "were  all  baptized  unto 
Mosef  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."     Ch.  i.  13:  "  Were  ye  baptized 
in  the  iiatne  of  Paul  ?  "     Romans  vi.  3  :  "  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many 
of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death  f 
See  also  Matthew  iii.  11 ;  1  Corinthians  xii.  13.] 


218       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

mentioned  together,  they  must  all  be  of  equal 
dignity;*  so  that,  in  the  present  case,  the  Father 
being  God,  the  same  character  must  also  belong 
to  the  Son  and  holy  spirit. 

These  are  the  only  grounds  on  which  the  deity 
of  the  Son  and  of  the  holy  spirit  can  be  inferred 
from  the  passage  before  us.  But  at  this  point  of 
the  reasoning,  if  we  have  arrived  at  any  doctrine,  it 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  three  Gods.  In 
order,  therefore,  to  conclude  the  proof  of  the  Trin- 
ity from  this  passage,  it  is  necessary  further  to  as- 
sume, — 

That  when  three  persons  are  thus  mentioned  to- 
gether in  a  sentence,  they  must  be  regarded  as 
constituting  but  one  Being. 

UNDER  this  head  may  be  explained  the  title 
"  SON  OF  GOD  "'  as  applied  to  Christ ;  on  which  I 
have  before  had  occasion  to  remark.f  The  Trini- 
tarian supposes  it  to  be  evidence  of  the  deity  of 
Christ ;  because  as  the  son  of  a  man  has  the  na- 
ture of  a  man,  so  the  Son  of  God  must  have  a 
divine  nature. 


*  [See  1  Timothy  v.  21 :  "I  charge  thce  before  God,  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  elect  angels"  Revelation  i. 4, 5 :  "  Grace  be  unto 
you  and  peace  from  Him  who  is,  and  was,  and  will  be;  and  from  the 
seven  spirits  which  are  before  his  throne;  and  from  Jesus  Christ,  the 
faithful  witness."  1  Chronicles  xxix.  20:  "And  all  the  congrega- 
tion   bowed  down  their  heads,  and  worshipped  the  LOUD  ana 

the  king."  Sec  also  Luke  ix.  26;  Exod.  xiv.  31 ;  1  Samuel  xii.  18, 
Prov.  xxiv.  21 ;  Acts  xv.  28 ;  and  the  passages  quoted  in  the  first 
note  on  the  preceding  page.] 

t  See  p.  68. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.      219 

If  the  doctrine  of  the  deity  of  Christ  involved 
no  absurdity,  the  title  in  question  might,  without 
doubt,  be  used  according  to  the  analogy  supposed ; 
but  the  proof  of  the  doctrine  must  still  be  derived 
from  other  sources.  No  evidence  of  it  could  be 
drawn  from  this  title  alone ;  because  the  title  is 
one  in  common  use,  and  its  significancy  in  every 
other  application  of  it  is  wholly  different  from  the 
meaning  ascribed  to  it  by  Trinitarians  when  ap- 
plied to  Christ.  For  this  entire  difference,  they 
must  necessarily  contend  ;  and  in  doing  so  virtu- 
ally acknowledge  that  there  is  no  usage  to  justify 
them  in  understanding  the  title  in  the  sense  which 
they  assign  to  it,  and  consequently  that  no  infer- 
ence can  be  drawn  from  this  title  alone  in  proof  of 
t/ie  deity  of  Christ. 

Nor  is  there  any  difficulty  in  explaining  its 
application  to  our  Saviour.  The  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (i.  5)  quotes  the  words 
which  God  in  the  Old  Testament  is  represented 
to  have  used  concerning  Solomon,  as  applicable 
to  Christ :  "  I  will  be  to  him  a  father,  and  he 
shall  be  to  me  a  son."*  By  these  words  was 
meant,  that  God  would  distinguish  Solomon  with 
peculiar  favors ;  would  treat  him  as  a  father 
treats  a  son ;  and  they  are  to  be  understood  in 
a  similar  manner  when  applied  to  Christ.  "  We 

*  [2  Samuel  vii.  14;  compare  1  Chronicles  xvii.  13;  xxviii.  6. 
The  same  term  is  applied  to  the  Israelites  collectively,  as  the  chosen 
people  of  God.  Sec  Exodus  iv.  22,  "  Israel  is  my  son,  my  first- 
born", and  Iloscft  xi.  1,  "When  Israel  was  a  child,  I  loved  him- 
and  called  my  son  out  of  Egypt."] 
23* 


220       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

beheld,"  says  St.  John  in  his  Gospel  (i.  14; 
"  his  glory,  glory  like  that  of  an  only  son  from 
a  father";*  that  is,  we  beheld  the  glorious  pow- 
ers and  offices  conferred  upon  him,  by  which  he 
was  distinguished  from  all  others,  as  an  only  son 
is  distinguished  by  his  father.  It  is  in  reference 
to  this  analogy,  and  probably,  I  think,  to  this 
very  passage  in  his  Gospel,  that  St.  John  else- 
where calls  Christ  "  the  only  Son  of  God,"  a  title 
applied  to  him  by  no  other  writer  of  the  New 
Testamentf 

But  the  title  was  also  familiarly  used  to  denote 
those  qualities  which  recommend  moral  beings  to 
the  favor  of  God  ;  those  which  bear  such  a  like- 
ness to  his  moral  attributes  as  may  be  compared 
with  the  likeness  which  a  son  has  to  his  father ; 
those  which  constitute  one,  in  the  Oriental  style, 
to  be  of  the  family  of  God.  Thus  our  Saviour 
exhorts  his  disciples  to  do  good  to  their  enemies, 
that  they  may  be  "sons  of  their  Father  in  heaven." f 
Nor  is  this  use  of  the  term  confined  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. Philo  urges  him  who  is  "not  yet  worthy  to 

*  'Edena-dp-eda  rrjv  86£av  avroC,  So£ai>  us  povoyevoi/s  Trapa  irarpos. 
These  words  should  not  be  rendered,  as  in  the  Common  Version, 
"  We  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Fa- 
ther." To  justify  this  rendering,  both  /uoi/oyei/oCy  and  irarpos  should 
have  the  article. 

t  There  is  a  doubt  whether  the  words,  John  iii.  16-21,  in  which 
this  title  occurs,  are  to  be  considered  as  the  language  of  Christ  or  of 
the  Evangelist.  If  St.  John  intended  to  ascribe  them  to  Christ,  he 
has  probably  clothed  the  ideas  of  his  Master  in  his  own  language ; 
and  we  may  so  account  for  the  use  of  a  title  in  this  passage,  which 
Christ  never  elsewhere  applies  to  himself. 

\  Yiol  TOV  irarpbs  u/icoi/,  Matthew  v.  45  ;  compare  Luke  vi.  35. 


EXPLANATIONS  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   221 

be  called  a  son  of  God,"  t&  aim  at  higher  excel 
lence.* 

In  reference  to  both  these  analogies,  the  term 
was  pre-eminently  applicable  to  Christ;  and  he 
was  therefore  called  by  others,  and  by  himself, 
"  THE  Son  of  God,"  the  article  being  used,  as 
often,  to  denote  pre-eminence.f 

THERE  are  two  subjects,  that  of  Prayer  to  Christ, 
and  that  of  the  Pre-existence  of  Christ,  each  in- 
volving the  consideration  of  several  particular  pas- 
sages, which  may  properly  be  treated  under  the 
present  head.  I  will  first  speak 

Of  Prayer  to  Christ. 

IT  has  been  maintained  that  Christ  is  God,  for 
the  supposed  reason  that  prayers  were  addressed 
to  him  by  the  first  Christians.  But  the  fact,  if  ad- 
mitted, would  afford  no  support  for  this  conclusion. 

*  De  Confusione  Linguarum.  Opp.  I.  427,  ed.  Mang.  —  Ata  rqv 
o/iOioTT/ra  viol  CKCIVOV  civai  Aoy«70€i>Tej,  "  through  likeness  to  God 
accounted  to  be  his  sons,"  is  an  expression  in  the  Clementine  Homi- 
lies, X.  §  6. 

t  The  words  ascribed  (Luke  i.  32)  to  the  angel  who  foretold  to 
Mary  the  birth  of  Christ,  are  sometimes  quoted  as  explanatory  of  the 
title  "  Son  of  God,"  with  reference  to  his  miraculous  conception.  I 
believe,  hqwever,  these  words  to  mean  :  "  He  shall  be  great ;  and  he 
shall  be  [not  shall  be  called]  a  son  of  the  Most  High  " ;  KaXeto-0a» 
being  equivalent  to  ctcm,  as  in  other  passages.  We  find  the  same 
expression  in  Psalm  Ixxxii.  6.  In  verse  35,  810,  rendered  in  the 
Common  Version  "  therefore,"  may  be  understood  as  meaning, 
"whence  it  may  be  inferred,"  "conformably  to  which,"  "so  that." 

[It  may  be  remarked,  that  our  Saviour  himself  has  expressly  stated 
the  ground  which  justified  him  in  calling  himself  "the  Sou  of  God.*1 
Seo  John  x.  36.] 


222      EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

To  pray  is  to  ask  a  favor.  In  a  religious  sense,  it 
is  to  ask  a  favor  of  an  invisible  and  superior  being. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  prayer  which  ren- 
ders it  improper  to  be  addressed  to  a  being  infe- 
rior to  God.  Whether  such  address  be  proper  or 
not,  must  depend  upon  other  considerations.  In 
itself  considered,  there  would  be  nothing  more  in- 
consistent with  the  great  principles  of  natural  re- 
ligion in  our  asking  a  favor  of  an  invisible  being, 
an  angel,  or  a  glorified  spirit,  than  in  our  asking  a 
favor  of  a  fellow-mortal.  For  anything  wre  can 
perceive,  God  might  have  committed  the  imme- 
diate government  of  our  world,  of  this  little  par- 
ticle of  the  universe,  or  the  immediate  superin- 
tendence of  the  Christian  church,  to  some  inferior 
minister  of  his  power.  Such  a  being  might  thus 
have  become  an  object  of  prayer.  Nay,  in  con- 
sistency with  all  that  we  know  of  the  character  of 
God,  there  might  have  been  an  intercourse,  very 
different  from  what  now.  exists,  between  the  visi- 
ble and  the  invisible  world.  The  spirits  of  our 
departed  friends  might  have  become  our  guardian 
angels,  with  power  to  confer  benefits  and  to  an- 
swer our  petitions.  Prayers  then  might  have  been 
addressed  to  them.  If,  therefore,  it  were  to  appear 
that  God  has  revealed  to  us  that  Christ  is  an 
object  of  prayer,  as  was  believed  by  Socinus  and 
his  followers,  this  would  afford  no  reason  for  con- 
cluding that  Christ  is  God.  What  follows  respect- 
ing prayer  to  Christ  is,  consequently,  a  mere  di- 
gression ;  but  a  digression  on  a  topic  so  importan 
that  it  needs  no  excuse. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   223 

Those,  at  the  present  day,  who  reject  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Tri.iity,  believe  that  God*  is  the  only 
object  of  prayer.  To  him  alone  they  believe  that 
Christ,  taught  his  followers  to  pray,  by  his  precepts 
and  example.  He  nowhere  enjoined  prayer  to 
himself.  And  though  the  subject  of  prayer,  viewed 
in  the  abstract,  may  appear  under  the  aspect  just 
presented ;  yet,  regarded  in  relation  to  the  actual 
character  and  condition  of  man,  we  may  perceive 
the  goodness  of  that  appointment  of  God  which 
teaches  us  to  direct  our  prayers  to  him  alone.  We 
may  understand  the  privilege  of  raising  our  undi- 
vided thoughts  to  our  God  and  Father,  and  repos- 
ing our  whole  trust  in  him.  Man  is  thus  brought 
into  an  intimate  connection  with  his  Maker,  which 
could  hardly  have  otherwise  existed. 

Of  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament  which 
have  been  supposed  to  favor  the  doctrine  of  prayer 
to  Christ,  the  first  that  may  be  noticed  is  his  own 
declaration  to  his  disciples  :  "  Again,  I  say  to  you, 
If  two  of  you  agree  on  earth  concerning  everything 
which  they  ask,  th-eir  prayers  will  be  granted  by 
my  Father  in  heaven.  For  where  two  or  three 
come  together  as  my  disciples,  there  am  I  in  the 
midst  of  them."  f  By  the  latter  words  our  Saviour 

*  To  a  Trinitarian,  I  may  say  that  I  use  the  term  "God"  to  de- 
cote  "  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

t  Matthew  xviii.  19,  20  :  "Concerning  everything  vlnch  they  ask," 
rrcpi  iravros  -rrpay^aroy ',  not,  "  concerning  anything,''  &*  in  the  Com- 
mon Version.  The  object  of  Christ,  in  the  discourse  from  which  the 
words  are  taken,  was  to  inculcate  upon  his  disciples  perfect  concord 
among  themselves,  and  an  entire  unity  of  feeling  and  purpose  as 
ministers  of  h.'s  religion.  The  reference  is  to  those  prayers  which 


224       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

did  not  mean  to  affirm,  that  he  would  be  present 
with  them  to  hear  their  prayers,  which  would  bo 
inconsistent  with  the  words  preceding,  in  which  he 
refers  them  to  his  Father  in  heaven,  as  him  who 
would  grant  their  requests.  His  purpose  was  to 
declare,  that  the  designs,  labors,  and  prayers  in 
which  his  followers  might  unite  for  the  promotion 
of  his  cause,  would  be  equally  blessed  with  his 
own.  It  would  be  as  if  he  were  praying  with 
them.  They  might  feel  the  same  confidence  that 
his  actual  presence  would  inspire. 

Another  passage  commonly  adduced  in  relation 
to  this  topic  has,  I  think,  no  bearing  upon  it.  It 
is  the  address  of  Stephen  to  Christ  at  his  martyr- 
dom.* Upon  this  occasion  Christ  is  represented 
as  having  been  visibly  present  to  Stephen.  The 
prayer  of  the  martyr,  therefore,  that  he  would  re- 
ceive his  spirit,  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  would 
receive  him  to  himself,  is  of  no  force  to  prove  that 
it  is  proper  to  offer  prayers  to  Christ  as  an  invisi- 
ble being.  We  might  with  as  much  propriety  ad- 
duce in  support  of  this  proposition  the  requests 
which  were  addressed  to  him  when  conversant 
among  men,  —  those,  for  instance,  in  which  his 
miraculous  aid  was  implored.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence that  the  last  words  of  Stephen,  in  which  he 
prayed  for  his  murderers,  were  addressed  to  Christ. 

St>  Paul,  in  his  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians (xii.  8),  speaking  of  "  the  thorn  in  his  flesh," 

they  might  offer  as  his  ministers,  and  in  which  they  Bright  all  ac 
cord. 
•  Acts  vii.  59. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   225 

says  that  he  thrice  besought  the  Lord,  meaning,  1 
think,  Christ,  that  he  might  be  relieved  from  it. 
Immediately  before,  he  speaks  of  the  extraordinary 
nature  of  the  revelations  that  had  been  granted 
him.  He  was  converted  by  the  personal  interposi- 
tion of  Christ.  He  himself  mentions  a  subsequent 
period  when  Christ  was  present  with  him,  and 
directed  his  conduct.*  Considering  the  peculiar 
miraculous  intercourse  subsisting  between  him  and 
our  Lord,  his  addressing  a  request  to  him  cannot 
be  considered  as  affording  any  example  or  author- 
ity for  prayer  to  Christ  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances. The  request  of  Paul  may  have  been 
offered  when  he  had  a  miraculous  sense  or  per- 
ception of  his  Master's  presence. 

We  have  indeed  sufficient  ground  for  believing, 
generally,  that  after  our  Saviour's  removal  from 
earth  there  still  continued  a  peculiar  connection 
between  him  and  his  Apostles  and  first  followers ; 
that  he  exercised  a  miraculous  superintendence  over 
their  concerns,  and  held  miraculous  intercourse  with 
them.  Of  the  nature  and  extent  of  this  connection 
the  Apostles  were  probably  ignorant,  having  never 
been  enlightened  on  the  subject  by  express  revela- 
tion. The  facts  with  which  we  know  them  to 
have  been  acquainted  are  sufficient  to  account  for 
their  expressions  concerning  it,  in  the  very  few 
passages  that  may  be  supposed  to  relate  to  it. 

Among  these  may,  perhaps,  be  reckoned  the  pas- 
sages in  which  St.  Paul  expresses  his  wish,  that 

*  Acts  xxii.  17,  seqq.     [See  also  Acts  xix  9,  10;  xxiii  11 ;  Gal* 
turns  L  1.  11.  12.] 


226   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

the  " favor  of  Christ"  may  be  with  those  whom 
he  addresses.  But  it  seems  to  me  most  probable, 
that  by  the  favor  of  Christ  the  Apostle  means 
principally,  if  not  solely,  that  favor,  those  blessings, 
of  which  Chris f»  was  the  minister  to  man. 

The  only  other  passages  of  importance  in  which 
prayer  is  supposed  to  be  addressed  to  Christ  by  a 
writer  of  the  New  Testament,  are  the  following:  — 

1  Thess.  iii.  11,  12.     "  May  our  God  and  Father 
himself,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  direct  our  way 
toward  you  ;  and  may  the  Lord  make  you  increase 
and  abound  in  your  love  toward  each  other  and 
toward  all,  as  we  do  toward  you." 

2  Thess.  ii.  16, 17.     u  May  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
himself,  and  our  God  and  Father  who  has  loved  us, 
and  has,  through  his  favor,  given  us  everlasting  en- 
couragement and  good  hope,  encourage  your  hearts 
and  confirm  you  in  every  good  word  and  work." 

In  the  former  of  these  passages,  we  find  St.  Paul 
expressing  a  wish  that  Christ  under  God  might 
direct  his  way  to  the  Thessalonians.  It  may  be 
explained  by  the  fact  of  that  peculiar  and  miracu- 
lous superintendence  over  his  preaching  which  was 
exercised  by  his  Master.  We  know  that  he  had 
first  preached  to  the  Thessalonians  in  consequeHce 
of  a  miraculous  direction.*  In  the  latter  passage, 

*  "  But  Paul  and  Silas  having  pissed  through  Phrygia  and  Gala- 
tia,  and  being  restrained  by  the  holy  spirit  from  preaching  the  re- 
Jigion  in  Asia,  came  to  Mysia,  and  were  preparing  to  go  to  Bithynia; 
but  the  spirit  of  Jesus  did  not  permit  them.  So,  passing  through 
Mysia,  they  went  down  to  Troas.  And  a  vision  appeared  by  night 
to  Paul.  A  certain  man,  a  Macedonian,  was  standing  by  him  and 
entreating  him,  saying,  Pass  over  to  Macedonia  and  help  us.  Then, 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   227 

in  kis  wishes  that  the  Thessalonians  might  enjoy 
spiritual  blessings  from  Christ,  he  may  probably 
refer  to  the  blessings  flowing  from  the  gospel  which 
Christ  taught.  The  effects  of  the  gospel  are  as- 
cribed to  its  great  teacher;  and  sometimes,  in  the 
figurative  style  of  the  New  Testament,  with  a  turn 
of  expression  which,  according  to  our  more  re- 
strained use  of  language,  might  imply  an  imme- 
diate agency  in  their  production  which  was  not 
intended  by  the  writer.  If,  however,  the  Apostle 
had  in  view,  not  the  power  of  the  gospel,  but  a 
present  agency  of  Christ,  we  must  consider  his 
language  as  founded  upon  the  conception  which 
he  entertained  of  Christ's  extraordinary  agency 
over  the  concerns  of  the  first  Christians. 

This  agency,  as  I  have  said,  was  miraculous. 
We  have  no  reason  to  believe  in  its  continuance 
after  the  Apostolic  age.  A  connection  of  the 
same  nature,  a  miraculous  connection  between 
Christ  and  his  followers,  does  not  exist  at  the  pres- 
ent day ;  nor  have  we  any  ground  for  believing 
that  God  has  committed  to  him  a  superintendence 
of  their  concerns.  Though  it  should,  therefore, 
appear,  that,  in  consequence  of  the  extraordinary 
and  peculiar  relation  subsisting  between  Christ 
and  the  first  Christians,  he  was,  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances and  conditions,  regarded  by  his  Apos- 
tles as  one  to  whom  requests  might  be  addressed ; 
yet,  upon  the  ceasing  of  that  relation,  no  reason 

immediately  after  this  vision,  we  endeavored  to  go  to  Macedonia, 
concluding  that  the  Lord  [Christ]  had  directed  us  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel to  them."  Acts  xvl  6-10. 


228       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

would  remain  for  bis  being  regarded  by  common 
Christians  as  an  object  of  prayer. 

But  it  has  been  contended  that  the  first  Chris- 
tians, generally,  were  accustomed  to  offer  prayers 
to  Christ.  This  belief  is  founded  upon  a  few  pas- 
sages in  which  Christians,  according  to  the  render- 
ing of  the  Common  Version,  are  represented  as 
"calling  upon  his  name."  Thus,  Acts  ix.  14,  "He 
[Saul]  hath  authority  to  bind  all  that  call  on  thy 
name  "  ;  —  the  address  of  Ananias  to  Saul,  Acts 
xxii.  16,  "And  now  why  tarriest  thou?  arise  and 
be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord";  —  1  Cor.  i.  2,  «  To  the 
church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  .....  with  all 
that  in  every  place  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  our  Lord."  Another  passage  to  the  same 
effect  may  be  found  in  Acts  ix.  21. 

The  expression  in  the  original,  rendered  "  to  call 
on  the  name  of"  is  one  often  used  in  the  Septuagint 
in  relation  to  God,  where  direct  address  in  prayer 
to  him  is  intended.  But  its  meaning  varies,  I  be- 
lieve, when  used  concerning  a  different  being. 

In  this,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  term  ren- 
dered "name"  is  pleonastic,  and  should  be  omitted 
in  a  translation.  This  being  premised,  it  may  next 
b2  remarked,  that  the  Greek  verb  eTriKa\el.a-6at.,  ren- 
derel  "  to  call  upon,"  does  not  properly  and  di- 
rectly denote  religious  invocation.  In  its  primary 
sense,  it  signifies  "  to  call"  or  "to  call  upon"  any 
one;  in  a  secondary  meaning,  "to  call  on  one  for 
help."  By  a  very  easy  extension  of  this  meaning, 
it  denotes,  I  believe,  "  to  look  to  one  for  help,"  "  to 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   229 

4e  y  upon  one  for  help,  protection,  deliverance," 
•*  to  trust  in  one."  In  this  use  of  it,  no  verbal  ad- 
dress is  implied ;  the  word  is  used  metaphorically. 
It  literally  denotes  "  calling  for  help  "  ;  it  is  used 
to  express  the  state  of  mind  in  which  we  trust  in 
another  for  help.  In  this  sense,  I  think,  the  word 
ought  to  be  understood,  when  used  concerning 
Christ.  The  meaning  of  the  terms  rendered  "  call- 
•ig  on  the  name  of  Christ,"  would,  I  believe,  be 
properly  and  fully  expressed  in  English  b^  the 
words,  "  looking  to  Christ  for  deliverance,"  that  is, 
through  the  power  of  the  gospel. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  why,  when  the  words  in 
question  have  a  meaning  in  which  they  are  often 
used  in  the  Septuagint,  and  according  to  which 
they  would  describe  Christians  generally  as  invok- 
ing, that  is,  praying  to,  Christ,  should  this  mean- 
ing be  set  aside?  I  repeat  what  I  have  said,  that 
the  verb  eirucaXeiaQai  does  not  properly  and  di- 
rectly denote  religious  invocation ;  and  that,  its 
object  being  changed,  there  is  nothing  improbable 
in  the  supposition  that  the  signification  of  the  verb 
is  changed  also.  I  answer  further,  that  there  seem 
to  be  insuperable  objections  to  the  belief  that  prayer 
was  offered  to  Christ  by  the  first  Christians.  His 
followers  were  not  commanded  by  our  Saviour  to 
pray  to  him.  Without  such  a  command,  they 
could  not  have  supposed  that  he  whom  they  had 
known  habitually  to  offer  prayers  to  his  Father  and 
our  Father,  was  himself  an  object  of  prayer.  Our 
Saviour  referred  his  Apostles  from  himself  to  God, 
as  the  invisible  being  to  whom  their  requests  were 


230      EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

to  be  addressed  when  he  should  be  taken  from 
them,  —  as  the  only  proper  object  of  prayer:  "  Then 
you  will  have  no  need  to  question  me.*  Truly, 
truly  I  tell  you.  Whatever  you  may  ask  the  Fa- 
ther in  my  name,  he  will  grant  you."  f  Conform- 
ably to  this,  we  find  no  precept  enjoining  prayer 
to  Christ  in  their  writings.  But  whether  Chris- 
tians were  or  were  not  to  pray  to  Christ,  could  not 
have  been  a  matter  of  indifference.  It  was  either 
to  be  done,  or  it  was  not  to  be  done.  If  a  duty,  it 
differed  from  other  duties,  in  the  circumstance  that 
it  must  have  been  founded  solely  upon  revelation 
and  an  express  command.  At  the  same  time,  if 
Christians  were  to  have  two  objects  of  prayer,  pe- 
culiar directions,  explanations,  and  cautions  must 
have  been  necessary.  But  nothing  appears  in  the 
New  Testament  answering  to  the  suppositions 
which  have  been  made.  There  is  an  entire  want 
of  that  evidence  of  the  fact  which  must  have  ex- 
isted, if  prayer  to  Christ  had  been  commanded  by 
himself  and  his  Apostles.  But  if  not  so  com- 
manded, it  was  not  practised  by  the  first  Chris- 
tians. The  case  was  the  same  with  them  as  with 
us ;  if  it  be  not  a  duty  to  pray  to  Christ,  it  is  a 
duty  not  to  pray  to  him. 

*  [See  John  xvi.  17-19.] 

t  John  xvi.  23.  The  words  Iv  eKfivrj  TTJ  ^jnepa,  rendered  [in  the 
Common  Version]  "in  that  day,"  are  merely  equivalent  to  the  ad- 
verb "then/'  The  time  intended  is  that  following  our  Saviour's 
ascension,  when,  in  figurative  language,  he  says  that  he  shall  be  with 
his  Apostles  again,  not  referring  to  his  personal  presence,  but  to  his 
presence  with  them  in  the  power  and  blessings  of  his  gospel,  and  in 
the  aid  afforded  them  by  God  as'his  ministers 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   231 

IT  appears,  therefore,  from  the  New  Testament, 
that  tin  first  Christians  did  not  offer  prayers  to 
Christ.  But  there  is  still  other  evidence  of  this 
truth,  to  which,  though  of  less  importance,  it  may 
be  worth  while  to  advert. 

It  has  been  urged  that  Pliny,  in  his  celebrated 
letter  to  Trajan,*  states  (on  the  authority  of  some 
who  said  that  they  had  been  Christians,  but  who 
had  deserted  the  religion)  that  Christians  in  their 
assemblies  were  "  accustomed  to  sing  together  a 
hymn  in  alternate  parts  to  Christ  as  to  a  god,"  — 
"carmen  Christo,  quasi  deo,  dicere  secum  invicem." 

These  words  have  been  alleged  to  prove,  both 
that  Christians  prayed  to  Christ,  and  that  they 
believed  him  to  be  God.  But  the  only  fact  which 
appears  is,  that  Christians  sung  hymns  in  celebra- 
tion of  Christ.  The  rest  is  the  interpretation  of  a 
heathen,  who  compared  in  his  own  mind  these 
hymns  to  those  which  the  heathens  sung  in  honor 
of  their  gods,  who  like  Christ  had  dwelt  on  the 
earth,  and  like  him,  having  died,  were  supposed 
to  be  still  living  in  a  higher  state  of  being.  With 
his  heathen  notions,  he  conceived  of  the  Chris- 
tians as  making  a  sort  of  apotheosis  of  their  Mas- 
ter. But  there  is  evidence  on  the  subject  before 
us  much  more  direct  and  more  important  than  that 
of  Pliny. 

It  is  the  evidence  of  Origen,  who  wrote  a  trea- 
tise u  On  Prayer"  in  the  former  half  of  the  third 
century.  Of  prayer,  properly  speaking,  Origen 
says :  — 

*  [Plinii  Epist  Lib.  X.  Ep.  96  (al.  97).] 
24* 


232      EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

"  If  we  understand  what  prayer  is,  it  will  appear 
that  it  is  never  to  be  offered  to  any  originated 
being,  not  to  Christ  himself,  but  only  to  the  God 
and  Father  of  all ;  to  whom  our  Saviour  himself 
prayed,  and  taught  us  to  pray.  For  when  his 
disciples  asked  him,  Teach  us  to  pray,  he  did  riot 
teach  them  to  pray  to  himself,  but  to  the  Father. 

Conformably  to  what  he  said,  Why  callest 

thou  me  good  ?  there  is  none  good  except  one,  God 
the  Father,  how  could  he  say  otherwise  than,  '  Why 
dost  thou  pray  to  me  ?  Prayer,  as  you  learn  from 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  is  to  be  offered  to  the  Father 

only,  to  whom   I  myself  pray.' '  You   have 

read  the  words  which  I  spoke  by  David  to  the 
Father  concerning  you ;  /  will  declare  thy  name  to 
my  brethren ;  in  the  midst  of  the  assembly  will  1 
sing-  hymns  to  thee.  It  is  not  consistent  with  rea- 
son for  those  to  pray  to  a  brother,  who  are  esteemed 
worthy  of  one  Father  with  him.  You,  with  me 
and  through  me,  are  to  address  your  prayers  to 

the  Father  alone.' Let  us  then,  attending  to 

what  was  said  by  Jesus,  and  all  having  the  same 
mind,  pray  to  God  through  him,  without  any  di- 
vision respecting  the  mode  of  prayer.  But  are  we 
not  divided,  if  some  pray  to  the  Father  and  some 
to  the  Son  ?  Those  who  pray  to  the  Son,  whether 
they  do  or  do  not  pray  to  the  Father  also,  fall  into 
a  gross  error,  in  their  great  simplicity,  through 
want  of  judgment  and  examination."* 

*  DC  Oratione,  cc.  25,  26.  Opp.  I.  pp.  222-224.  I  quote  the  last 
passage  principally  because  it  is  erroneously  rendered  by  Dr.  Priest- 
ley (History  of  Early  Opinions,  II.  161)  in  a  manner  directly  adverse 
to  his  own  argument 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       233 

In  learning  and  talents,  Origen,  during  his  life- 
time, had  no  rival  among  Christians.  There  waa 
none  who  possessed  the  same  weight  of  character. 
The  opinions  which  he  expresses  in  the  passages 
just  quoted  were  undoubtedly  the  common  opin- 
ions of  the  Christians  of  his  time. 

Origen  himself,  indeed,  in  other  passages,  asserts 
or  implies  that  prayer  in  an  inferior  sense  may  be 
addressed  to  the  Logos  or  Christ.  In  his  work 
against  Celsus,  he  says,  for  instance  :  "  Every  sup- 
plication, prayer,  request,  and  thanksgiving  is  to  be 
addressed  to  Him  who  is  God  over  all,  through  the 
High-  Priest,  superior  to  all  angels,  the  living  and 
divine  Logos.  But  we  shall  also  supplicate  the 
Logos  himself,  and  make  requests  to  him,  and  give 
thanks  and  pray,  whenever  we  may  be  able  to-  dis- 
tinguish between  prayer  properly  speaking  and 
prayer  in  a  looser  sense."  *  Probably  what  is  here 
meant  may  appear  from  two  other  passages,  in  his 
work  against  Celsus,  in  which  he  says  :  "  We  first 
bring  our  prayers  to  the  only  Son  of  God,  the 
First-born  of  the  whole  creation,  the  Logos  of 
God,  and  pray  to  him  and  request  him,  as  a  High- 
Priest,  to  offer  up  the  prayers  which  reach  him  to 
the  God  over  all,  to  his  God  and  our  God."f  It 
is,  indeed,  most  likely  that  the  doctriife  of  Origen 
concerning  the  propriety  of  offering  prayers,  in  any 
Bense  of  the  term,  to  the  Logos  or  Christ,  had  its 

"  Cont.  Ccls.  Lib.  V.  §  4  Opp.  I.  580.  —  tiiv  Swap-fOa  *nraKou«j» 
*fjs  TTfpi  Trpocrfv^J}?  icvpio\(£ias  KOI 


t  Ibid.,  Lib.  VIII.  §  13.  p.  751,  ct  §  26.  p    761.     Compare,  how 
erer,  Lib.  V.  §  11,  ad  fin  p.  586.     [See  also  Lib.  III.  c.  34.  p  4G9.J 


234       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

origin  rather  in  his  own  philosophical  opinions, 
than  in  the  belief  and  practice  of  the  generality  of 
Christians. 

The  Trinitarian  supposes  that  the  first  Chris- 
tians were  taught  to  pray  to  Christ  or  the  Son,  as 
God  equal  to  the  Father,  and  that  they  were  dis- 
tinguished, by  the  circumstance  of  offering  such 
prayers,  as  "those  who  called  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord."  How  is  it  possible  to  reconcile  this 
supposition  with  the  state  of  opinion  and  practice 
which  we  find  among  Christians  during  the  time 
of  Origen,  the  first  half  of  the  third  century  ?  The 
Antitrinitarian  believes  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
deity  of  Christ  had  been  making  gradual  progress. 
When,  therefore,  he  finds  that,  at  the  period  just 
mentioned,  Christ  was  still  spoken  of,  by  a  writer 
so  eminent  as  Origen,  as  not  being  an  object  of 
prayer  properly  so  called,  no  doubt  remains  on  his 
mind  that  he  had  never  been  so  regarded  at  any 
preceding  period,  that  he  was  not  so  represented 
by  himself  or  his  Apostles,  nor  so  esteemed  by  the 
first  Christians. 

On  the  Pre-existence  of  Christ. 

I  WILL  now  turn  to  the  passages  which  aje  sup» 
posed  particularly  to  assert  the  pre-existence  of 
Christ.  If  this  doctrine  were  proved,  it  would 
afford  no  proof  of  his  being  God;  but  the  preju- 
dices in  favor  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  have, 
notwithstanding,  been  strengthened  by  a  misun- 
derstanding of  the  passages  referred  to.  The  fig- 
urative language  in  which  several  of  them  are 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.      235 

expressed  may,  I  think,  be  explained  by  the  fol- 
lowing considerations. 

One  of  the.  main  objections  of  the  generality  of 
the  Jews  to  Christianity  was  its  being  a  novelty, 
an  innovation,  subverting  their  former  faith.  The 
Pharisees  said :  "  We  are  disciples  of  Moses.  We 
know  that  God  spoke  to  Moses ;  but  as  for  this 
man,  we  know  not  whence  he  is."*  The  doctrine 
of  Christ  was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  popular 
religion  of  the  Jews,  which,  though  a  religion  of 
hypocrisy,  formalities,  superstition,  and  bigotry, 
they  had  identified  in  their  own  minds  with  the 
Law ;  —  and  the  Law,  their  ancient  Law,  which 
for  fifteen  centuries,  as  they  believed,  had  been 
their  distinguishing  glory,  they  looked  upon  as  an 
immutable  covenant  made  by  God  with  his  chosen 
people.  Were  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  they  might 
ask,  to  be  opposed  to  what  they  believed,  and  what 
their  fathers  had  believed,  upon  the  faith  of  God  ? 
Was  a  teacher  of  yesterday  to  be  placed  in  com- 
petition with  Moses  and  the  Prophets  ?  Was  it  to 
be  supposed  that  God  would  change  his  purposes, 
alter  the  terms  of  their  allegiance,  and  substitute  a 
new  religion  for  that  which  he  had  so  solemnly 
sanctioned  ? 

One  mode  of  meeting  these  feelings  and  preju- 
dices of  the  Jews  was  by  the  use  of  language 
adapted  to  their  modes  of  conception,  asserting  or 
implying  that  the  sending  of  Christ,  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  his  religion,  had  always  been  purposed 

*  John  ix.  28,  29. 


236       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

by  God.  This  was  done  in  part  by  figurative 
modes  of  speech,  conformed  to  the  Oriental  style, 
and  more  or  less  similar  to  many  which  we  find  in 
the  Old  Testament.  Facts  connected  with  the 
introduction  of  Christianity  were  spoken  of  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  —  according  to  the  verbal 
meaning  of  their  language  —  as  having  taken  place 
before  the  world  was ;  the  purpose  being  to  express 
in  the  most  forcible  manner,  that  their  existence 
was  to  be  referred  immediately  to  God,  and  had 
from  eternity  been  predetermined  by  him.  What 
they  meant  to  represent  God  as  having  foreor- 
dained, they  described  as  actually  existing. 

Thus  St.  Paul  says  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
(viii.  29,  30),  "  For  those  whom  God  foreknew,  he 
predestined  should  be  conformed  to  the  image  of 
his  Son,  that  he  might  be  the  first-born  among 
many  brethren ;  and  whom  he  predestined  he  sum- 
moned, and  whom  he  summoned  he  made  right- 
eous, and  whom  he  made  righteous  he  glorified." 
I  refer  particularly  to  the  last  clause,  in  which  God 
is  spoken  of  as  having  already  glorified  the  disci- 
ples of  Christ,  because  it  is  certain  that  he  will.* 

Thus  also  in  writing  to  the  Ephesians  (i.  3,  4) : 
"  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who,  having  exalted  us  to  heaven,  is  bless- 
ing us  with  every  spiritual  blessing  through  Christ, 
he  having  in  his  love  chosen  us  through  him  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world" 

To  Timothy  (2  Ep.  i.  8,  9)  he  says:  «  Suffer  to 

•  Compare  verses  17-25. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   237 

gethcr  with  me  for  the  gospel,  sustained  by  the 
power  of  God,  who  has  delivered  us,  and  sum- 
moned us  by  a  sacred  call,  not  in  consequence  of 
our  works,  but  conformably  to  his  own  purpose, 
and  the  favor  bestowed  upon  us  through  Christ  Jesus 
before  time  was.11 

So  also  to  Titus  (i.  1,  2) :  "  Paul,  a  servant  of 
God,  and  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  preach 
the  faith  of  the  chosen  of  God,  and  to  make  known 
the  truth  which  leads  to  the  true  worship  of  God, 
founded  on  the  expectation  of  eternal  life,  which 
God  who  cannot  deceive  promised  before  time  was.19 

For  other  passages  in  which  that  which  is  pur- 
posed by  God  is  figuratively  spoken  of  as  actually 
existing,  see  Exodus  xv.  13,  comp.  17;  1  Samuel 
xv.  28 ;  Psalm  cxxxix.  16 ;  Isaiah  xlix.  1 ;  John 
x.  16;  Acts  xviii.  10;  Galatians  i.  15. 

When  Christianity,  after  having  been  preached 
to  the  Jews,  was,  if  I  may  so  speak,  committed  in 
trust  to  its  Gentile  converts,  it  had  to  encounter 
the  same  objection  of  its  being  a  novel  dcctrine ; 
and  this  objection  was  met  in  a  similar  manner, 
and  by  a  similar  use  of  language.  In  his  "  Exhor- 
tation to  the  Gentiles,"  Clement  of  Alexandria 
says :  "  Error  is  ancient,  truth  appears  a  novel- 
ty."  Then,  after  mentioning  some  of  those  nations 
which  made  the  most  extravagant  pretension*  to 
antiquity,  he  adds:  "But  we  [Christians]  were 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world  ;  through  the 
certainty  of  our  future  existence,  previously  exist- 
ing in  God  himself."  * 

•  IJpo  dc  TTJS  rov  KOO-pov  Kara/3oXf)ff  q/ift?  •  ol  TU>  Selv  (ffea&aj., 


238      EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

We  should  hardly  expect  to  find  in  the  Ne\v 
Testament  a  critical  explanation  of  any  figurative 
mode  of  speech  ;  but  something  very  like  such  an 
explanation  of  that  which  we  are  considering  is 
found  in  St.  Paul,  when  his  words  are  properly 
translated  and  understood. 

In  the  book  of  Genesis  (xvii.  4,  5)  God  is  rep- 
resented as  saying  to  Abraham,  "  Behold,  my  cove- 
nant is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  father  of 
many  nations.  Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more 
be  called  Abram,  but  thy  name  shall  be  Abraham  ; 
for  a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee" 

cv  at>T<5  irpoTfpov  yeyevvrjpevoi  r<5  6eo>,  p.  6,  ed.  Potter. — Thus 
too  in  a  book  which  in  very  early  times  was  in  considerable  repute 
among  Christians,  "The  Shepherd  of  Hcrmas,"  Hermas  represents 
himself  as  being  told  by  an  angel  in  a  vision,  that  "  the  Church  was 
the  first  created  of  all  things,  and  for  her  sake  the  world  was  made." 
(Lib.  I.  Vis.  2.) 

We  find  the  same  figurative  use  of  language  in  the  writings  of  the 
later  Jews.  In  the  Talmud  it  is  recorded  that  R.  Eliezer  said  : 
"  Seven  things  were  created  before  the  world ;  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
the  Law,  the  Righteous,  the  Israelites,  the  Throne  of  Glory,  Jerusa- 
lem, and  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  David."  This,  in  the  Book  Cosri, 
is  explained  as  meaning,  that  "  they  were  prior  in  the  intention  of 
God  " ;  they  constituting  the  end  for  which  the  world  was  created ; 
and  the  end  being  in  intention  precedent  to  the  means.  (Liber  Cosri, 
ed.  Buxtorf.  p.  254.)  Many  similar  passages  are  quoted  or  referred 
to  by  Schoettgen  (Horaj  Hcbr,  Tom.  II.  pp.  436,  437),  among  which 
are  the  following.  Sohar  Levit,  fol.  14,  col.  56 :  "  Rabbi  Hezekiah 
sat  down  in  the  presence  of  Eleazar,  and  asked,  How  many  lights 
were  created  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  ?  He  answered, 
Seven  ;  the  light  of  the  Law,  the  light  of  Gehenna,  the  light  of  Para- 
dise, the  light  of  the  Throne  of  jGIory,  the  light  of  the  Temple,  the 
light  of  Repentance,  and  the  light  of  the  Messiah."  In  various  other 
Rabbinical  books  cited  by  Schoettgen  we  find  the  same  enumeration, 
except  that  the  word  "light"  is  omitted  throughout,  and  "the  name 
of  the  Messiah  "  is  substituted  for  "  the  light  of  the  Messiah,"  But  in 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   239 

Referring  to  this  passage,  St.  Paul  says,  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  (iv.  16,  17)  :  "  The  promise 
was  sure  to  all  the  offspring  of  Abraham,  not  to 
those  under  the  Law  only,  but  to  those  who  have 
the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  all 
(as  it  is  written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many 
nations)  in  the  sight  of  God  in  whom  he  trusted, — 
of  Him  who  restores  life  to  the  dead,  and  speaks 
of  the  things  which  are  not,  as  though  they  were." 
In  the  view  of  the  Apostle,  God,  as  it  were,  re- 
stored life  to  the  dead,  in  enabling  Abraham  and 
Sarah  to  have  a  son ;  *  and,  in  calling  Abraham 

Bereshith  Rabba,  sect.  1,  fol.  3,  3,  there  is  a  different  statement:-— 
"  Six  things  preceded  the  creation  of  the  world  :  some  of  these  were 
created,  as  the  Law  and  the  Throne  of  Glory  ;  others  it  was  in  the 
mind  of  God  to  create,  namely,  the  Patriarchs,  Israel,  the  Temple, 
and  the  name  of  the  Messiah."  In  Midrash  Tehillim,  fol.  28,  2,  it  is 
said  that  the  use  of  the  word  Dip.  in  Psalm  Ixxiv.  2  "  teaches  us,  that 
God  created  Israel  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  The  same 
commentary  elsewhere  says,  that  "  Repentance  preceded  the  creation 
of  the  world";  and  in  Sohar  Levit.,  fol.  29,  col.  113,  the  following 
passage  occurs:  "Before  God  created  the  world,  he  created  Repent- 
ance, and  said  to  her,  It  is  my  will  to  create  man  in  such  a  relation 
to  thee,  that,  when  he  returns  to  thee  from  his  transgressions,  thou 
shall  be  ready  to  forgive  his  transgressions,  and  to  make  expiation 
for  them." 

*  That  this  was  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle  appears  from  the 
verses  which  immediately  follow  those  quoted  above:  "For  he  [Abra- 
ham] had  confident  hope  of  that  which  was  past  hope,  that  he  should 
be  the  father  of  many  nations,  according  to  the  declaration,  Thus  will 
thy  offspring  be.  And,  not  being  weak  in  faith,  he  did  not  regard  his 
own  body  then  dead,  he  being  about  a  hundred  years  old,  nor  the 
deadness  of  Sarah's  womb  ;  nor  had  he  any  doubt  or  mistrust  about 
the  promise  of  God." 

Compare  also  Hebrews  xi.  19,  where,  in  reference  to  the  birth  of 
Isaac,  Abraham  is  said  to  have  received  him,  "  figuratively  speaking 
from  the  dead." 

' 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

the  father  of  many  nations,  spoke  of  the  things 
which  were  not,  as  though  they  were. 

Using  language  in  the  manner  which  has  beer, 
illustrated,  our  Saviour  spoke,  in  his  last  prayer 
with  his  disciples,  on  the  night  before  his  death,  of 
the  glory  which  he  had  with  God  before  the  world 
was. 

"  When  Jesus  had  thus  spoken,  he  raised  his 
eyes  to  heaven  and  said  :  — 

"Father!  the  hour  has  come.  Glorify  thy  Son, 
that  thy  Son  may  glorify  thee,  —  through  the 
power  that  thou  hast  granted  him  over  all  men, 
to  give  to  all  those  whom  thou  hast  given  him 
eternal  life.  And  this  is  eternal  life,  to  know  thee, 
the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou 
hast  sent.  I  have  glorified  thee  on  earth.  I  have 
finished  the  work  which  thou  gavest  me  to  do. 
And  now,  Father!  glorify  thou  me  with  thyself, 
with  that  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the 
world  was."  * 

Afterwards,  in  speaking  of  his  disciples,  our 
Saviour  says :  "  The  glory  which  thou  hast  given 
me,  I  have  given  them "  ;  f  words  implying  that 
the  glory  which  he  had  with  the  Father  was  such 
as  might  be  conferred  on  men ;  and  such  as,  by 
constituting  them  his  Apostles,  he  had  enabled 
them  to  attain. 

"  Father ! "  he  continues,  "  I  desire  for  those 
whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  where  I  am  they 
also  may  be  with  me,  so  that  they  may  behold  my 

*  John  xvii.  1-5.  t  Ibid.,  verse  22 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  241 

glory,  which  thou  gavest  me,  for  thou  didst  love 
me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."* 

The  character  and  purport  of  these  expressions 
of  Jesus  are  explained  by  what  has  been  said.  A 
principal  object  of  our  Saviour  in  the  language  of 
this  prayer,  as  well  as  throughout  the  discourse 
which  precedes  it,  was  to  strengthen  the  minds  of 
his  Apostles  to  meet  that  fearful  trial  of  their  faith 
which  was  close  at  hand,  and  to  prepare  them  for 
their  approaching  separation  from  him.  He  uses, 
in  consequence,  the  most  forcible  modes  of  speech, 
in  order  to  produce  the  deepest  impression.  He 
desired,  by  the  whole  weight  of  his  authority,  by 
every  feeling  of  affection  and  awe,  by  language 
the  most  pregnant  and  of  the  highest  import,  and 
by  figures  too  strong  and  solemn  ever  to  be  for- 
gotten, to  make  them  feel  his  connection,  and 
their  own  connection,  with  God.  Their  teacher, 
their  master,  their  friend,  was  the  special  messen- 
ger of  God,  distinguished  by  his  favor  beyond  all 
other  men  ;  and  in  this  favor  they  shared,  as  his 
followers.  He  was,  in  the  Oriental  style,  "one 
with  God"  in  the  work  in  which  he  had  been 
engaged;  and  they,  in  like  manner,  were  to  be  one 
with  God  and  him.  God  had  from  eternity  re- 
garded him  with  love ;  and  they  were  like  objects 
of  God's  love.f  They  were  hereafter  to  behold  in 
heaven  the  consummate  glory  of  him,  who  before 
the  close  of  another  day  was  to  be  exposed  to  the 

•  John  xvii.  24. 

t  "  —  that  the  world  may  know  that  thou  hast  sent  me,  and  hast 
loved  them  as  thou  hast  loved  me."    John  xvii.  23. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

mockery  of  the  Roman  soldiers,  to  suffer  the  oat- 
rages  of  an  infuriated  mob,  arid  to  expire  by  a 
death  as  ignominious  as  it  was  cruel. 

HAVING  furnished  the  key  to  passages  of  this 
kind,  of  which  there  are  not  many,  I  will  notice 
particularly  but  one  other.  John  viii.  52,  53,  56- 
58 :  "  The  Jews  said  to  Jesus,  Now  we  are  sure 
that  you  are  possessed  by  a  daemon.  Abraham 
died,  and  the  Prophets  ;  and  you  say,  Whoever 
obeys  my  teaching  will  never  taste  of  death.  Are 
you  greater  than  our  father  Abraham,  who  died  ? 
And  the  Prophets  died.  Whom  do  you  make 
yourself  to  be  ?  Jesus  answered, Your  fa- 
ther Abraham  exulted  that  he  might  see  my  day ; 
and  he  saw  it,  and  rejoiced.  Then  the  Jews  said 
to  him,  You  are  not  yet  fifty  years  old ;  and  have 
you  seen  Abraham  ?  Jesus  said  to  them,  Truly, 
truly  I  tell  you,  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  was 
He." 

The  rendering  of  the  Common  Version,  "  Before 
Abraham  was,  I  am,"  is  without  meaning,  —  the 
present  tense,  "  I  am,"  being  connected  with  the 
mention  of  past  time,  "  before  Abraham  was " ; 
and  this  circumstance  has  doubtless  assisted  in 
producing  the  belief  that  the  words  express  a 
mystery.  But  our  Saviour  says  that  Abraham 
saw  his  day,  that  is,  the  times  of  the  Messiah. 
This  declaration  no  one  understands  verbally,  and 
there  is  as  little  reason  for  giving  a  verbal  mean- 
ing to  that  under  consideration.  In  the  explana- 
tion of  it  two  things  are  to  be  attended  to. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   243 

In  the  first  place,  after  the  words  eyco  et/u,  ren- 
dered in  the  Common  Version,  "  I  am,"  we  must 
understand  o  X/MCTTO'?,  "  the  Messiah " ;  as  is  evi- 
dent from  two  preceding  passages  in  the  same  dis- 
course. In  verse  24,  Jesus  says,  with  the  same 
ellipsis,  "  Unless  you  believe  that  lam  [that  is,  that 
lam  the  Messiah],  you  will  die  in  your  sins  "  ;  and 
in  verse  28  he  tells  the  Jews,  "  When  you  have 
raised  on  high  [crucified]  the  Son  of  Man,  then 
you  will  know  that  lam"  meaning,  that  I  am  the 
Messiah.  The  same  ellipsis  occurs  repeatedly  in 
the  Gospels  and  Acts;  as,  for  instance,  in  Mark 
xiii.  6  and  Luke  xxi.  8  we  find  the  words,  "  Many 
will  come  in  my  name,  saying  /  am" ;  while  in 
Matthew  xxiv.  5  the  ellipsis  is  supplied,  "  Many 
will  corne  in  my  name,  saying,  I  am  the  Messiah.*' 
Other  examples  are  referred  to  below.* 

This  apparently  strange  omission  of  the  predi- 
cate of  so  important  a  proposition  may,  I  think,  be 
thus  explained.  The  Messiah  was  expected  by 
the  Jews  as  one  who,  placing  himself  at  the  head 
of  the  nation,  would  deliver  them  from  the  tyran- 
ny under  which  they  were  suffering.  Equally  to 
Herod,  the  ruler  of  Galilee,  and  to  the  Roman  pro- 
curator of  Judaea,  an  individual,  publicly  announ- 
cing himself  as  the  Messiah,  must  have  appeared 
a  daring  rebel,  exciting  the  nation  to  revolt.  The 
subject  was  one  about  which  the  Jews  must  have 
communed  together  with  the  feelings  of  conspira- 
tors ;  and  in  discussing  it,  they  would  use  imper- 

*  Acts  xiii.  25  (comp.  John  iii.  28)  ;  John  iv.  26 ;  xiii.  19. 
25* 


244       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

feet  and  ambiguous  language,  indicating,  rather 
than  expressing,  their  meaning.  Even  when  dan- 
ger was  not  feared,  a  certain  degree  of  secrecy 
might  be  affected,  and  there  might  be  a  disposi- 
tion to  employ  terms  the  full  significance  of  which 
would  be  understood  only  by  those  who  felt  with 
the  speaker.  Upon  the  appearance  of  Jesus,  the 
multitude  being  excited  by  his  miracles  and  preach- 
ing, and  the  intimations  concerning  his  character, 
the  inquiry  arose  among  them,  whether  he  were 
the  Messiah.  The  question  was  often  asked,  we 
may  suppose,  eagerly,  but  cautiously,  "  Is  it  he  ?  " 
OUTO?  ea-Ti  ;  —  not  broadly  and  rashly,  "  Is  he  the 
Messiah  ?  "  and  a  corresponding  answer  returned, 
'Eari,  «  He  is,"  —  Ovtc  earn,  «  He  is  not."  I  have 
adverted  to  the  dangerous  nature  of  the  subject,  as 
connected  with  the  purpose  of  revolt  against  the 
Roman  power.  The  mere  fact,  however,  of  its 
being  one  of  universal  interest,  on  which  the 
thoughts  of  men  were  strongly  bent,  may  be  alone 
sufficient  to  account  for  the  use  of  abbreviated 
expressions  to  convey  a  meaning  that  every  one 
was  ready  to  apprehend.  Still,  the  predicate  of 
the  proposition  we  are  considering  being  sup- 
pressed, and  the  language,  in  consequence,  being 
in  itself  wholly  ambiguous,  this  manner  of  speak- 
ing might  be  adopted  by  Christ  for  the  purpose  of 
at  once  intimating  his  claims  to  be  the  Messiah, 
and  leaving  his  meaning  in  some  degree  uncertain. 
Thus  in  the  present  discourse,  when  he  tells  the 
Jews  (verse  24),  "  Unless  you  believe  that  I  am  He, 
you  will  die  in  your  sins";  they  ask  in  return, 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   245 

"  Who  arc  you  ? "  The  use,  therefore,  of  this 
mode  of  expression  corresponded  to  that  reserve  as 
to  openly  and  explicitly  avowing  himself  to  be  the 
Messiah,  which  the  expectations  and  feelings  of 
the  Jews  compelled  him  to  maintain  till  the  clos- 
ing scenes  of  his  ministry.* 

In  the  next  place,  the  verb  et/u'  is  here  to  be  un- 
derstood as  having  the  force  of  the  perfect  tense, 
that  is,  as  denoting,  literally  or  figuratively,  a  state 
of  being,  commenced  at  a  distant  time,  and  con- 
tinued to  the  present.  It  is  thus  elsewhere  used 
in  St.  John's  Gospel.  "  Have  I  been  [verbally, 
Am  I]  so  long  with  you,  and  yet  have  you  not 
known  me,  Philip  ?  "  f  But  such  is  our  use  of 
language,  that  this  meaning  is  here  to  be  expressed 
in  English  by  the  imperfect  tense,  "  I  was."  If  we 
should  say,  "  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  have 
been,"  the  idea  of  uninterrupted  continuance  of 
being  to  the  present  time  is  so  far  from  being  con- 
veyed, that  it  is  rather  excluded. 

The  full  meaning  of  Jesus,  then,  was  this :  Be- 

*  It  may  be  objected  to  this  account,  that  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem 
are  represented  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  John's  Gospel  as  explicitly 
discussing  the  question,  whether  Jesus  were  or  were  not  the  Messiah. 
(See  verses  26,  27,  31,  41,  42.)  I  answer,  that  it  is  not  necessary  to 
suppose  that  the  caution  of  the  Jews  respecting  the  subject  in  ques- 
tion was  always  maintained.  It  might  disappear  in  the  heat  of  con- 
troversy, and  it  gave  way,  without  doubt,  to  the  excitement  of  strong 
feelings;  as  when  the  multitude  wished  to  compel  Jesus  to  place 
himself  at  their  head,  as  their  king  (John  vi.  15)  ;  and  upon  his  tri- 
umphant entry  into  Jerusalem,  just  before  his  crucifixron.  It  is  suf- 
Gcient  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  our  Saviour's  language,  if  the 
mode  of  expression  he  adopted  were  common. 

t  John  xiv.  9. 


246       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

fore  Abraham  was  born,  I  was  the  Messiah ;  that 
is,  I  was  designated  by  God  as  the  Messiah.  The 
words  cannot  be  understood  verbally,  because  "  the 
Messiah "  was  the  title  of  one  bearing  an  office 
which  did  not  exist  till  it'  was  assumed  by  Jesus 
on  earth.  Before  Abraham,  there  was  no  Messiah 
except  in  the  purpose  of  God.  The  language  used 
by  Christ  is  of  the  same  figurative  character  with 
that  which  we  find  at  the  commencement  of  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  as  addressed  to  him  by  God 
(i.  5) :  "Before  I  formed  thee  in  the  womb,  I  knew 
thee ;  and  before  thou  earnest  forth  at  thy  birth,  I 
sanctified  thee,  and  I  ordained  thee  a  prophet  to 
the  nations." 

WE  will  now  consider  some  passages  of  a  dif- 
ferent character.  In  his  conversation  with  Nico- 
demus,  our  Saviour  says  (John  iii.  12,  13):  "If  I 
tell  you  earthly  things  and  you  believe  not,  how 
will  you  believe  should  I  tell  you  heavenly  things  ? 
And  no  one  has  ascended  to  heaven,  except  him 
who  has  descended  from  heaven,  the  Son  of  Man, 
who  is  in  heaven." 

Heaven  being  considered  by  the  Jews  as  the 
local  habitation  of  the  Deity,  "to  ascend  to 
heaven"  is  here  a  figure  used  to  denote  the  be- 
coming acquainted  with  the  purposes  and  will  of 
God,  with  things  invisible  and  spiritual,  "  heav- 
enly things";  "to  be  in  heaven"  is  to  pos- 
sess such"  acquaintance  ;  and  "  to  descend  from 
heaven,"  or  "to  come  from  heaven,"  is  to  come 
from  God. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   247 

IN  this  sense  the  expression  "to  descend  from 
heaven  "  is  used  by  our  Saviour  in  his  discourse 
with  the  Jews,  recorded  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
John's  Gospel.  The  Jews,  whop  he  had  disap- 
pointed the  day  before  in  their  attempt  "  to  make 
him  their  king,"  or,  in  other  words,  to  compel  him 
to  assume  publicly  the  character  of  the  Messiah, 
according  to  their  conception  of  it,  had  now  col- 
lected about  him  with  very  different  feelings.  They 
were  disposed  to  disparage  his  miracles  in  com- 
parison with  those  of  Moses.  He  had  fed  five 
thousand  men  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes ;  but 
Moses,  they  said,  quoting  the  Old  Testament, 
"  had  given  them,"  the  Jews,  "  bread  from  heaven 
to  eat."*  In  what  follows,  this  expression  is  used 
figuratively  by  our  Saviour,  to  denote  that  his  doc- 
trine came  from  God,  or,  to  express  the  same  idea 
in  other  words,  that  he  himself  came  from  God. 
It  was  usual  for  him  to  draw  his  figures  from 
something  which  had  just  been  said,  or  some  pres- 
ent object  or  recent  event.  "  Moses,"  he  says, 
"  gave  you  not  the  bread  from  heaven  "  ;  meaning 
that  Moses  had  not  given  them  a  religion  like  his 
own,  adapted  to  supply  all  their  spiritual  wants ; 
"  but  my  Father,"  he  continues,  "  is  giving  you  the 
true  bread  from  heaven;  for  the  bread  of  God  is 
that  which  is  now  descending  from  heaven  and 
giving  life  to  the  world."  f  By  "  the  bread  of  God 
which  gives  life  to  the  world,"  our  Saviour  here 
means  his  doctrines,  his  religion;  and  with  this,  by 

•  John  vi.  31.  t  Verses  32,  33. 


248       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

an  obvious  figure,  common  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, he  afterwards  identifies  himself.  "  I  am  the 
bread  of  life  ;  he  who  comes  to  me  will  never  hun- 
ger, and  he  who  has  faith  in  me  will  never  thirst."* 
"  I  have  descended  from  heaven,  not  to  do  my  own 
will,  but  the  will  of  Him  who  sent  me";f  —  that 
is,  I  who  bring  this  religion  from  heaven  have  no 
other  purpose  but  to  perform  the  will  of  God. 

The  Jews,  that  is,  some  of  the  Jews,  his  enemies, 
carped,  as  usual,  at  his  words.  "  Then  the  Jews 
murmured  at  him,  because  he  said,  I  arn  the  bread 
which  has  descended  from  heaven.  And  they  said, 
Is  not  this  man  Jesus,  the  spn  of  Joseph  ?  one 
whose  father  and  mother  we  know?  What,  then, 
does  he  mean  by  saying,  I  have  descended  from 
heaven  ?  "  J  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
they  understood  him  as  meaning  that  he,  being  a 
man,  had  descended  from  heaven;  or  that  he,  being 
a  pre-existent  spirit,  had  assumed  a  human  form. 
Their  objection  was  to  the  absolute  authority 
which  this  man,  Jesus,  the  son,  as  they  called 
him,  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  claimed  as  the  delegate 
of  God.  They  had  the  same  feeling  as  was  shown 
by  his  fellow-townsmen  of  Nazareth,  when  they 
asked :  "  Is  not  this  man  the  carpenter,  the  son  of 
Mary,  and  kinsman  of  James  and  Joses  and  Judas 
and  Simon  ?  "  § 

IN  verse  62  of  this  chapter,  there  is  a  passage 
thus  rendered  in  the  Common  Version :  "  What 

*  John  vi.  35.  t  Verse  38. 

t  Verses  41,  42.  f  Mark  vi.  3. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   249 

and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  ascend  up 
where  he  was  before  ?  "  It  has  been  thought  to 
refer  to  his  ascension  to  heaven,  and  to  imply  that 
he  existed  in  heaven  before  his  appearance  on 
earth.  In  order  to  understand  it,  we  must  attend 
to  its  connection. 

In  the  preceding  part  of  the  discourse,  our  Sav- 
iour had  spoken  of  his  religion  as  bread  or  food 
descending  from  heaven,  and  having  figuratively 
identified  himself  with  his  religion,  he  describes 
this  food  as  giving  eternal  life.  "  Truly,  truly  I 
tell  you,  He  who  puts  his  trust  in  me  has  eternal 
life.  I  am  the  bread  of  life ;  your  fathers  ate  the 
manna  in  the  desert  and  died ;  but  if  any  one  eat 
of  this  bread  which  is  descending  from  heaven,  he 
shall  not  die.  I  am  the  bread  of  life  which  has 
descended  from  heaven ;  if  any  one  eat  of  this 
bread,  he  shall  live  for  ever."*  As  food  is  the 
means  of  prolonging  the  natural  life,  so  the  re- 
ligion of  Christ  was  the  means  of  enjoying  eternal 
life.  Metaphors  of  a  similar  kind,  derived  from 
taking  food,  and  applied  to  the  partaking  of  what 
is  desirable,  the  being  compelled  to  endure  what  is 
painful,  or  the  experiencing  the  consequences,  good 
or  evil,  of  our  own  conduct,  occur  elsewhere  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  are  probably  common  in  most  lan- 
guages. In  such  metaphors,  however,  as  well  as 
in  other  figurative  modes  of  speech,  the  Oriental 
style  passes  beyond  the  limits  within  which  we  are 
confined.  Thus  in  Ecclesiasticus,  Wisdom  is  per- 

•  John  vi.  47-51. 


250       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

sonified  and  represented  as  saying :  "  Thoso  who 
eat  me  shall  yet  be  hungry,  and  those  who  drink 
me  shall  yet  be  thirsty."*  Thus  too  in  the  Tal- 
mud, R.  Hillel,  who  asserted  that  the  Messiah  had 
already  come,  is  said  to  have  been  opposed  by 
other  doctors,  who  maintained  that  "  the  Israelites 
were  yet  to  eat  the  days  of  the  Messiah."  He,  on 
the  contrary,  affirmed  that  "  they  had  eaten  their 
Messiah  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah."f 

But  in  the  words  following  those  last  quoted 
from  our  Saviour's  discourse,  there  is  an  accession 
to  the  figure.  It  becomes  the  vehicle  for  express- 
ing a  new  fact.  He  says  :  "  But  the  bread  which 
I  will  give  is  my  body,  which  I  will  give  for  the 
life  of  the  world."  In  this  language,  he  refers,  I 
conceive,  to  his  own  death.  He  goes  on :  "  Unless 
you  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his 
blood,  you  have  not  life  within  you " ;  and  he 
repeats  and  insists  upon  this  strong  figure.  When 
he  thus  describes  the  food  of  life,  of  which  his  fol- 
lowers were  to  partake,  as  his  own  flesh  and  his 
own  blood,  the  only  purpose,  I  believe,  of  this  am- 
plification of  the  figure  is  to  show  that  the  bless- 
ings to  be  enjoyed  through  him  were  to  be  pur- 
chased by  his  violent  death.  It  was,  I  think,  so 
understood,  at  least  partially,  by  those  who  heard 
him.  His  object  was  to  destroy  all  hope  of  his 
establishing  a  splendid  temporal  kingdom,  such  as 
the  Jews  had  been  expecting ;  and  thus  to  repress 

*  Chapter  xxiv.  21. 

t  See  Wetstein's  note  on  John  vi.  51.     [See  also  Noyes  *  note  on 
Ezekiel  iii.  1.] 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   251 

all  worldly  motives  in  those  who  were  inclined  to 
be  his  followers.  Their  Master  was  not  to  be  a  con- 
queror and  a  monarch,  as  they  might  have  hoped, 
dispensing  honors  and  favors  to  his  adherents  and 
countrymen ;  the  sacrifice  of  his  own  life  was  re- 
quired, a  bloody  death  was  to  be  suffered  by  him, 
in  order  that  his  followers  might  enjoy  those  bless- 
ings of  which  he  was  the  minister.  So,  as  I  have 
said,  he  appears  to  have  been  understood;  and 
many  of  his  followers  in  consequence  deserted  him. 

"  Thus  taught  Jesus  in  a  synagogue  at  Caper- 
naum. Then  many  of  his  disciples,  when  they 
heard  him,  said,  This  is  hard  teaching ;  who  can 
listen  to  it  ?  But  Jesus,  knowing  in  his  own 
mind  that  his  disciples  were  murmuring  on  ac- 
count of  his  discourse,  said  to  them,  Does  this 
give  you  offence?  What,  then,  if  you  should  see 
the  Son  of  Man  ascending  where  he  was  before?"* 

The  meaning  is,  Does  it  offend  you  that  I  speak 
of  my  death  ?  What,  then,  if  you  shall  see  me 
rising  from  the  dead,  and  appearing  where  I  was 
before  ?  When  Jesus  made  mention  of  his  death, 
he  on  other  occasions  connected  it  with  the  predic- 
tion that  he  should  rise  from  the  dead.  To  his 
resurrection  he  alludes  as  a  signal  proof  to  be 
given  of  the  divinity  of  his  mission,  but  never 
elsewhere  to  his  ascension.f  After  the  words 

•  John  vi.  59  -  62. 

t  See  an  explanation  of  this  verse  in  Simpson's  Essays  on  the 
Language  of  Scripture.  [For  a  somewhat  different  explanation, 
taken  from  Mr.  Norton's  Notes  on  the  Gospels,  see  Appendix, 
Note  A.] 

26 


252       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

which  have  been  quoted,  he  goes  on,  contrary  in 
some  degree  to  his  usual  custom,  to  explain  in 
part  the  figurative  language  which  he  had  used  : 
"  What  is  spiritual,"  he  says,  "  gives  life.  The 
flesh  profits  nothing " ;  —  that  is,  my  flesh  would 
profit  you  nothing;  —  "the  words  which  I  speak 
to  you  are  spiritual,  and  give  life."  * 

IT  has  been  contended  by  some  modern  German 
divines,  who  appear  themselves  to  regard  Christ 
merely  as  a  human  teacher,  that  he  was  believed 
or  represented  by  his  Apostles,  if  not  by  himself, 
to  have  been  a  pre-existent  being,  the  Logos  of 
God.  They  appeal,  of  course,  to  some  of  the 
same  passages  which  are  brought  forward  by 
Trinitarians  and  others  in  support  of  this  doctrine, 
and  in  proof  of  the  deity  of  Christ  in  which  it  is 
implied.  But  we  may  here  make  the  general 
remark,  that  if  the  Apostles  had  regarded  their 
Master  as  an  incarnation  of  a  great  pre-existent 
spirit,  far  superior  to  man,  they  would  not  have 
left  us  to  gather  their  belief  from  a  doubtful  inter- 
pretation of  a  few  scattered  passages.  No  fact 
concerning  him,  personally,  would  have  been  put 
forward  in  their  writings  with  more  prominence 
and  distinctness.  None  would  have  been  oftener 
brought  into  notice.  None  would  have  more 
strongly  affected  their  imaginations  and  feelings. 
None  would  have  been  adapted  more  to  affect 
their  disciples.  St.  Matthew  would  not  have 
written  an  account  of  his  Master,  as  it  must  be 

•  John  vi  63. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       25o 

conceded  that  he  has,  without  anywhere  expressly 
declaring  the  fact.  The  Apostles  would  have  left 
us  in  as  little  doubt  concerning  their  belief  of  it,  as 
concerning  their  belief  of  his  crucifixion  and  resur- 
rection. 


CLASS    V. 

Passages  relating  to  the  divine  authority  of  Christ 
as  the  minister  of  God,  to  the  manifestation  of 
divine  power  in  his  miracles  and  in  the  establish- 
ment  of  Christianity,  and  to  Christianity  itself, 
spoken  of  under  the  name  of  Christ,  and  consid- 
ered as  a  promulgation  of  the  laws  of  God's  moral 
government,  —  which  have  been  misinterpreted  as 
proving  that  Christ  himself  is  God. 

FOR  example:  there  are  two  passages  in  the 
prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  which  speak  of  a 
messenger  as  going  before  Jehovah  to  prepare  his 
way  and  announce  his  coming.  They  are :  — 

Isaiah  xl.  3.  "  A  voice  is  crying,  Prepare  ye  in 
the  waste  the  way  of  Jehovah,  make  straight  in 
the  desert  a  road  for  our  God." 

Malachi  iii.  1.  "  Lo!  I  will  send  my  messenger, 
and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me." 

These  passages  are  in  the  Gospels  applied  to 
John  the  Baptist,  the  precursor  of  Christ.* 

*  Matthew  iii.  3 ;  xi.  10 ;  Mark  i.  2,  3 ;  Luke  i.  76 }  iii.  4 ;  rii.  27 
John  i.  23. 


254       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

The  angel,  who,  according  to  the  narrative  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Luke's  Gospel,  announced  the  birth 
of  John,  is  likewise  represented  as  saying  to  Zach- 
ariah  :  — 

"  And  many  of  the  sons  of  Israel  will  he  turn 
back  to  the  LORD,  their  God ;  and  he  will  go  be- 
fore him  with  the  spirit  and  the  power  of  Elijah."* 

From  these  passages,  it  is  inferred  that  Christ  is 
Jehovah.  But  they  admit  of  an  easy  explanation. 

In  conformity  to  the  rude  apprehensions  of  the 
Jews,  we  often  find  in  the  Bible,  particularly  in 
the  Old  Testament,  strong,  and,  in  themselves  con- 
sidered, harsh  figures  applied  to  God,  which  are 
borrowed  from  the  properties,  passions,  and  ac- 
tions of  man,  and  even  of  the  inferior  animals. 
Among  them  is  the  common  figure  by  which  God, 
in  giving  any  peculiar  manifestation  of  his  power, 
is  represented  as  changing  his  place,  and  coming 
to  the  scene  where  his  power  is  displayed.  But  if 
we  except  the  case  of  miraculous  operations  ex- 
erted directly  upon  the  minds  of  men,  the  power 
of  God  must  be  manifested  by  means  of  sensible 
objects.  It  is  often  represented  as  exerted  through 
the  agency  of  human  beings,  and  other  conscious 
ministers  of  his  will.  When  thus  exerted,  its 
effects,  and  the  circumstances  by  which  its  display 
is  attended,  are  sometimes  referred  to  God  as  the 
ultimate  cause,  and  sometimes  to  the  immediate 
agent.  What  is  said  in  one  case  to  be  done  by  an 
angel,  or  by  Moses,  or  by  Christ,  or  by  some  other 

*  Luke  i.  16, 17. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       255 

instrument  of  God's  will,  is  in  another  case  said 
to  be  done  by  God.  The  power  displayed  is  re- 
garded, according  to  different  modes  of  conceiving 
the  same  thing,  as  appertaining  to  him  or  to  them. 
God  comes,  according  to  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, when  a  commissioned  instrument  of  his  will 
appears;  and  the  precursor  of  the  latter  is  the  pre- 
cursor of  God.  Thus,  too,  as  the  power  and  good- 
ness of  God  were  displayed  in  Christ,  he  might  be 
denominated  "  Immanuel,"  a  name  meaning  "  God 
is  with  us."*  [See  Matthew  i.  23;  Isaiah  vii.  14.] 

*  In  the  usage  supposed,  there  is  nothing  extraordinary,  or  foreign 
from  our  modes  of  expression.  But  in  the  Pentateuch  the  agent  of 
God's  will,  Moses,  is  confounded  with  God  himself  in  a  very  strange 
and  almost  inexplicable  manner ;  which  at  least  illustrates  the  fact, 
how  far  we  ought  to  he  from  insisting  upon  the  bare  letter  of  a  pas- 
sage, picked  out  here  and  there,  in  opposition  to  common  sense  and 
the  general  tenor  of  a  writing. 

In  Deuteronomy  xi.  13-15,  Moses  is  represented  as  thus  address- 
ing the  Israelites :  — 

"  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  if  ye  shall  hearken  diligently  to  my 
commandments  which  I  command  you  this  day,  to  love  Jehovah, 
your  God,  and  to  serve  him  with  all  your  heart  and  with  all  your 

soul,  that  I  will  give  you  the  rain  of  your  land  in  its  due  season, 

and  I  will  send  grass  in  thy  fields." 

Instead  of  "  I  will  give,"  the  Samaritan  text,  the  Septuagint,  and 
the  Vulgate  here  read,  "  He  will  give  " ;  but  this  reading  appears 
obviously  to  have  been  introduced  to  remove  the  difficulty  of  the 
pSssage. 

Again,  Deuteronomy  xxix.  2,  5,  6  :  — 

"And  Moses  called  together  all  Israel,  and  said  to  them, I 

have  led  you  forty  years  in  the  wilderness  •,  your  clothes  have  not 
waxen  old  upon  you,  nor  your  shoes  waxen  old  upon  your  feet ;  ye 
have  not  eaten  bread,  nor  drunk  wine  nor  strong  drink;  that  ye  may 
know  that  I,  Jehovah,  am  your  God." 

Here  the  Samaritan  text  agrees  with  the  Hebrew  ;  the  Septungint 
in  the  Alexandrine  manuscript,  and  the  Vulgate  and  Syriac  versions, 
26* 


256       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT, 

In  the  first  part  of  the  discourse  of  our  Saviour 
with  the  Jews,  recorded  in  the  fifth  chapter  of 
John's  Gospel  (verses  16-30),  which  took  place 
after  he  had  excited  their  enmity  against  him  by 
miraculously  curing  a  man  on  the  Sabbath,  there 
are  expressions  as  strong  as  are  anywhere  used 
concerning  his  authority  as  a  minister  of  God,  and 
concerning  his  religion  as  taught  and  sanctioned 
by  God,  as  a  promulgation  of  the  laws  of  God's 
moral  government.  The  words  of  Christ  were 
bold  and  figurative.  The  style  of  St.  John,  who 

alter  as  in  the  preceding  passage,  changing  the  pronoun  of  the  first 
person  for  that  of  the  third. 

Once  more,  Deuteronomy  xxxi.  22,  23  :  — 

"  Moses,  then,  wrote  this  song  the  same  day,  and  taught  it  the 
children  of  Israel. 

"  And  he  gave  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun,  a  charge,  and  said :  Be 
strong  and  of  good  courage;  for  thou  shall  bring  the  children  of  Is- 
rael into  the  land  which  I  sware  unto  them,  and  I  will  be  with  thee." 

Here,  to  avoid  the  difficulty,  the  Septuagint  reads,  "  which  the 
Lord  sware  unto  them,  and  he  will  be  with  thee  " ;  expressly  ascrib- 
ing the  speech  to  Moses,  as  the  connection  requires,  and  supplying 
his  name,  thus  :  "  And  Moses  charged  Joshua."  The  Vulgate  takes 
a  different  course,  ascribing  the  whole  speech  to  Jehovah,  thus :  "  And 
the  Lord  charged  Joshua." 

The  various  readings  of  the  Versions  evidently  deserve  no  consid- 
eration, as  the  origin  of  them  is  apparent.  Whoever  may  look  into 
a  number  of  commentators,  unless  he  be  more  fortunate  than  myself, 
will  be  surprised  to  find,  either  that  these  passages  are  passed  over  in 
silence,  or  that  the  attempts  tc  explain  them  are  but  slight  and  un- 
satisfactory. How  they  are  to  be  explained,  or  accounted  for,  is  a 
question  which  it  is  not  here  the  place  to  discuss,  and  one  which  it 
is  not  easy  to  answer.  But  it  may  be  remarked,  that  if  a  passage 
corresponding  to  them  had  been  found  in  the  discourses  of  Christ, 
it  must  have  appeared,  I  think,  to  a  Trinitarian  a  much  strongei 
argument  than  any  that  can  now  be  adduced  in  support  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  deity  of  Christ. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       257 

has  reported  them,  is  in  general  obscure,  except  in 
mere  narrative ;  and  the  same  style  appears  in  his 
own  compositions  and  in  the  discourses  of  our 
Saviour  as  recorded  by  him,  which  differ  in  this 
respect  from  those  given  by  the  other  three  Evan- 
gelists. It  appears  probable,  therefore,  that  St. 
John,  preserving  essentially  the  thoughts  uttered 
by  his  Master,  conformed  the  language,  more  or 
less,  to  his  own  modes  of  expression.  The  pas- 
sage, from  these  causes,  is  in  the  original  some- 
what difficult  to  be  understood  ;  and  in  the  imper- 
fect and  erroneous  rendering  of  the  Common  Ver- 
sion, its  bearing  and  purpose  are  scarcely  to  be 
discerned.  As  in  similar  cases,  the  obscurity  thus 
spread  over  it  has  served  to  countenance  the  sup- 
position that  it  involves  some  mysterious  meaning. 
Yet,  even  as  rendered  in  the  Common  Version,  the 
passage,  so  far  from  affording  any  proof  of  the 
deity  of  Christ,  presents  only  the  conception  of  his 
entire  dependence  upon  God. 

In  order  to  enter  into  its  character  and  purpose, 
we  must  consider  that  the  Jews  in  general,  having 
little  moral  desert  to  recommend  them  to  the  favor 
of  God,  placed  their  reliance  upon  external  cere- 
monies ;  and  among  these,  there  was  none  to 
which  they  attached  more  importance  than  a  su- 
perstitious observance  of  the  Sabbath.  The  ma- 
jority of  the  Jews  had  that  enmity  toward  Christ, 
which  the  bigots  of  a  false  religion  always  feel 
toward  a  teacher  of  the  truth,  who  discloses  the 
nothingness  and  the  falsehood  of  their  pretensions. 
As  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  as  performing 


258   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

"the  works  of  the  Law,"  which  in  their  view  were 
little  more  than  the  ceremonies  of  the  Law,  as 
God's  chosen  people,  they  considered  themselves 
as  holy,  and  looked  upon  Christ  as  a  profane  here- 
siarch.  Their  feelings  toward  him  were  such  as 
in  the  fifteenth  century  might  have  been  excited 
among  the  members  of  the  Romish  Church  in  any 
Catholic  country,  by  one  openly  teaching,  I  do  not 
say  Protestantism,  but  pure  Christianity,  the  es- 
sential truths  of  religion  and  morals,  and  fearlessly 
reproving  the  vices,  superstitions,  and  hypocrisy  of 
the  age.  They  regarded  him,  as  such  a  reformer 
would  have  been  regarded,  as  an  enemy  of  God; 
for  if  he  were  not  at  enmity  with  God,  they  were. 

In  opposition  to  this  state  of  feeling  among 
them,  our  Saviour  used  the  strongest  expressions 
to  declare,  that  he  was  acting  wholly  under  the 
guidance  of  God,  and  that  his  authority  was  the 
authority  of  God.  It  is  an  obvious  remark,  though 
it  may  be  worth  pointing  out,  that  the  expressions 
of  the  most  absolute  dependence  upon  God,  and 
the  boldest  assertions  of  divine  authority,  amount 
to  the  same  thing,  and  occur  indiscriminately  in  his 
discourses.  So  far  as  he  was  a  mere  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  God,  so  far  was  his  authority  iden- 
tical with  that  of  God.  These  considerations  will 
perhaps  explain  the  general  character  of  the  pas- 
sage we  are  considering,  which  may  be  thus  ren- 
dered :  — 

"  Upon  this  the  Jews  came  in  pursuit  of  Jesus 
because  he  had  done  thus  on  the  Sabbath.  But 
Jesus  said  to  them,  As  my  Father  is  continually 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT    259 

working,  so  I  also  work.  —  Then,  for  this,  the  Jews 
were  more  bent  on  killing  him,  because  he  had  not 
only  broken  the  Sabbath,  but  also  had  spoken  of 
God  as  particularly  his  Father,  putting  himself  on 
an  equality  with  God.  Then  Jesus  said  to  them, 
Truly,  truly  I  tell  you,  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself,  but  only  what  he  sees  his  Father  doing. 
But  what  his  Father  does,  the  Son  also  does  in 
like  manner.  For  the  Father  loves  the  Son,  and 
directs  him  in  all  that  he  does,  and  will  direct  him 
in  greater  works  than  these,  to  your  astonishment. 
For  as  the  Father  raises  the  dead  and  gives  them 
life,  so  also  the  Son  gives  life  to  whom  he  will. 
Nor  does  the  Father  condemn  any  one,  but  has 
committed  all  condemnation  to  the  Son  ;  that  all 
may  honor  the  Son  as  they  honor  the  Father.  He 
who  honors  not  the  Son,  honors  not  the  Father 
who  sent  him.  Truly,  truly  I  tell  you,  He  who 
hears  my  words,  and  puts  his  trust  in  Him  who 
sent  me,  has  eternal  life,  and  shall  not  come  under 
condemnation,  but  has  passed  from  death  to  life. 
Truly,  truly  I  tell  you,  that  the  hour  is  coming, 
and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of 
the  Son  of  God,  and  those  who  hear  it  shall  live. 
For  as  the  Father  is  the  fountain  of  life,  so  has  he 
given  to  the  Son  to  be  the  fountain  of  life ;  and 
he  has  intrusted  him  with  authority  to  pass  con- 
demnation also,  because  he  is  the  Man.  Be  not 
astonished  at  this ;  for  the  hour  is  coming,  when 
all  who  are  in  their  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice,  and 
come  forth ;  those  who  have  done  good,  to  the  res- 
urrection of  life,  and  those  who  have  done  evil,  io 


260       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

the  resurrection  of  condemnation.  I  can  do  noth- 
ing of  myself.  I  condemn  as  I  am  directed,  and 
:ny  condemnation  is  just;  for  I  regard  not  my  own 
will,  but  the  will  of  Him  who  sent  me." 

We  will  now  attend  to  some  passages  in  this 
discourse,  which  require  or  admit  further  illustra- 
tion. The  Jews,  exasperated  against  Jesus,  had 
represented  him  to  themselves  as  one  who  impi- 
ously impugned  the  authority  of  their  Law,  hav- 
ing openly  manifested  his  contempt  for  it  by  a 
wanton  violation  of  the  Sabbath.  The  immediate 
purport  of  the  first  address  of  our  Saviour  to  them 
may  be  thus  expressed  :  I  am  executing  the  works 
of  God,  to  whom  my  relation  is  like  that  of  a  son 
to  a  father ;  and  as  the  immediate  works  of  God 
are  not  suspended  from  a  regard  to  the  rest  of  the 
Sabbath,  neither  is  there  reason  that  mine  should 
be,  —  "  As  rny  Father  is  continually  working,  so  I 
also  work."  (Verse  17.)  The  ultimate  object  of 
these  words  was  to  affirm,  in  a  manner  very  strik- 
ing, at  once  from  its  indirectness  and  its  brevity, 
that  he  was  acting  as  the  minister  of  God  with  his 
full  approbation  and  authority.  The  Jews  did  not 
familiarly  speak  of  God  as  their  father ;  and  when 
Jesus  called  him  "  MY  Father,"  they  understood 
him  at  once  as  meaning  to  express,  that  his  rela- 
tion to  God  was  different  from  that  of  all  other 
men.  They  understood,  likewise,  that  he  "put 
himself  on  an  equality  with  God,"  in  implying 
that  he  was  no  more  bound  by  a  regard  to  the  law 
of  the  Sabbath  than  God,  by  whose  authority  he 
acted* 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.      261 

There  is  nothing,  I  think,  in  what  follows,  that 
requires  particular  explanation,  till  we  come  to  the 
words :  "  As  the  Father  raises  the  dead  and  gives 
them  life,  so  also  the  Son  gives  life  to  whom  he 
will."  (Verse  21.)  With  fany,  «  life,"  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  idea  of  happiness  is  associated. 
"  Eternal  life,"  for  example,  denotes  eternal  hap- 
piness. The  meaning  of  Christ,  then,  in  these 
words,  may  be  thus  expressed:  The  Father  raises 
the  dead  to  a  new  and  happy  state  of  being ;  but 
in  this  work  he  has  appointed  the  Son  as  his  min- 
ister, who  by  his  religion  affords  the  means  of  se- 
curing this  blessedness,  which  will  be  conferred  on 
all  his  followers  without  exception,  as  if  by  his 
own  act  and  will. 

"  Nor  does  the  Father  condemn  any,  but  has 
committed  all  condemnation  to  the  Son."  (Verse 
22.)  This  language,  it  is  obvious,  must  on  any 
supposition  be  regarded  as  figurative.  What  was 
meant  by  it  is,  that  Christ,  being  the  teacher  of 
that  religion  through  which  the  laws  and  sanc- 
tions of  God's  moral  government  are  made  known, 
might  be  regarded  as  the  minister  of  God  appoint- 
ed to  pronounce  the  sentence  of  condemnation 
on  all  exposed  to  it.  He  condemned  only  those 
whom  God  condemned,  and  he  condemned  all 
those  whom  God  condemned.  It  is  as  such  a 
minister  that  he  afterward  represents  himself,  when 
he  says,  "  I  condemn  as  I  am  directed."  At  the 
close  of  the  discourse  (verse  45),  dropping  this 
figure,  he  represents  God  in  person  as  the  judge 
who  passes  sentence.  "  Think  not,"  he  says,  "  that 


262       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

I  shall  accuse  you  to  the  Father.  There  is  one 
who  is  accusing  you,  Moses,  in  whom  you  have 
trusted."  In  another  discourse  (ch.  xii.  47,  48)  he 
explains  what  is  meant  by  him  when  he  speaks  of 
judging  and  condemning  men.  It  signifies  that 
men  will  be  judged  and  condemned  according  to 
those  laws  and  sanctions  of  moral  conduct  which 
he  has  made  known  to  them  in  his  religion :  "  If 
any  one  who  hears  my  words  regards  them  not,  I 
do  not  pass  sentence  on  him ;  for  I  have  not  come 
to  pass  sentence  on  the  world,  but  to  save  the 
world.  There  is  a  judge  for  him  who  rejects  me 
and  receives  not  my  words ;  —  THE  DOCTRINE  I 
HAVE  TAUGHT,  that  will  pass  sentence  on  him  here- 
after." 

In  the  discourse  before  us,  our  Saviour  used  the 
words  on  which  we  are  remarking  in  reference  to 
the  Jews,  his  enemies,  who  considered  themselves 
as  secure  of  not  being  condemned  by  God,  how- 
ever their  characters  and  conduct  might  be  con- 
demned by  Jesus.  It  will  be,  he  gives  them  to 
understand,  as  if  all  condemnation  were  committed 
to  the  Son. 

"  Truly,  truly  I  tell  you,  He  who  hears  my  words, 
and  puts  his  trust  in  Him  who  sent  me,  has  eter- 
nal life,  and  shall  not  come  under  condemnation, 
but  has  passed  from  death  to  life."  (Verse  24.) 
The  punishment  of  sin  is  often  represented  in  the 
New  Testament  under  the  figure  of  death.  Death 
is  regarded  as  the  most  severe  of  human  punish- 
ments, and  commonly  apprehended  as  the  greatest 
of  the  inevitable  evils  of  our  present  state ;  except 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       263 

when  this  apprehension  is  done  away  by  the  faHh 
and  hopes  of  a  Christian.  To  his  view,  indeed,  it 
changes  its  aspect.  To  him  it  is  a  deliverance 
from  the  thraldom  of  this  life,  and  a  rapid  and 
glorious  advance  in  that  course  of  progression  and 
blessedness  on  which  he  has  entered.  It  is  no 
interruption  of  that  ETERNAL  LIFE,  which  he  has 
commenced.  According  to  the  common  appre 
hension  of  death,  "  he  shall  never  die."  But  \f 
the  sinner  death  appears  under  an  opposite  aspect 
The  natural  dread  of  it  is  not  alleviated  by  any 
rational  hope  of  a  happier  life  to  follow  it.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  the  commencement  of  that  state 
in  which  the  tendencies  of  his  evil  dispositions  will 
be  more  fully  developed,  and  their  consequences 
more  bitterly  felt.  Now  to  the  dispensations  of 
the  future  life  Christ  always  refers  as  the  great 
sanctions  of  his  religion.  Death,  then,  being  the 
termination  of  all  sinful  gratifications,  and  the 
commencement  of  future  punishment,  for  this  rea- 
son, in  connection  with  those  before  mentioned,  is 
employed,  by  an  obvious  figure,  to  represent  the 
whole  punishment  of  sin ;  and  those  who  lie  ex- 
posed to  this  punishment  are,  by  a  figure  equally 
obvious,  spoken  of  as  already  "dead";  as  the  good 
arc  spoken  of  as  already  in  possession  of  "  eternal 
life."  Thus,  too,  we  may  perceive  why  death,  pre- 
senting itself  under  such  opposite  aspects  to  the 
one  class  and  to  the  other,  is  represented,  though 
common  to  all,  as  the  punishment  of  the  wicked. 

"  Truly,  truly  I  tell  you,  that  the  hour  is  coming, 
and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  oi 

27 


264      EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TEST  &.MENT. 

tne  Son  of  God,  and  those  who  hear  it  shall  live.'* 
(Verse  25.)  The  discourse  of  our  Saviour  has 
been  misunderstood,  from  inattention  to  the  causes 
why  sinners  are  metaphorically  called  by  him 
"  dead."  It  has  been  thought  to  be  on  account  of 
the  deadness  of  their  moral  principles  and  affec- 
tions. Hence  some  commentators  have  supposed 
that  there  is  in  this  discourse  a  series  of  harsh 
transitions,  from  the  literally  dead  who  are  raised 
to  life  by  the  Father,  to  the  morally  dead  spoken 
of  in  the  words  last  quoted,  and  then  again  to  the 
proper  dead  "who  are  in  their  tombs."  Others 
have  explained  the  words  just  quoted  as  referring 
to  the  literally  dead  who  were  raised  to  life  by 
our  Saviour  during  his  ministry,  though  no  corre- 
sponding meaning  can  be  put  upon  his  language 
immediately  preceding,  in  which  he  speaks  of 
those  who  have  "  passed  from  death  to  life,"  and 
the  explanation  is,  at  the  same  time,  foreign  from 
the  purpose  and  connection  of  the  discourse,  and 
inconsistent  with  the  antithetical  opposition  which 
runs  through  it  between  the  two  general  classes, 
of  the  dead,  and  of  those  who  have  eternal  life. 
Others  still,  by  a  far  more  extravagant  interpreta- 
tion, have  understood  Jesus,  when  he  speaks  of 
those  in  their  tombs  who  shall  hear  his  voice  and 
live,  to  refer  only  to  the  morally  dead,  and  conse- 
quently to  describe  only  a  moral  resurrection.  The 
true  meaning  of  the  words  we  are  considering  I 
conceive  to  be,  that  Christ  had  come  to  call  sin- 
ners to  reformation  ;  that  those  who  lay  exposed  to 
death  with  all  its  fearful  consequences,  "  the  dead," 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       2G5 

as  they  are  figuratively  called,  would  hear  his 
voice  ;  and  that  those  who  listened  to  it  would  be 
delivered  from  death  as  an  evil,  and  have  only  to 
look  forward  to  life  and  blessedness. 

"  The  Father  has  intrusted  him  with  authority 
to  pass  condemnation  also,  because  he  is  the 
Man."  (Verse  27.)  The  rendering  of  the  last 
words  needs  explanation.  In  the  Oriental  lan- 
guages, the  term  "  son  of  man  "  was  used  simply 
as  equivalent  to  "  man."  Of  this,  as  every  one 
knows,  there  are  many  examples  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testament.  In  the  Syriac  version  of  the 
New  Testament,  this  periphrasis  not  unfrequently 
occurs  where  only  the  word  avOpanros,  "  man,"  ia 
used  in  the  original.  In  this,  which  is,  I  conceive, 
the  only  sense  of  the  term,  it  was  used  by  Christ 
concerning  himself.  "  The  Son  of  Man  "  means 
nothing  more  than  "the  Man."  Why  he  so  des- 
ignated himself  has  not,  I  think,  been  satisfactorily 
explained.  It  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  state 
of  things  which  has  been  already  referred  to.* 
The  coming  of  the  Messiah  was  a  dangerous  topic 
of  discourse.  He  would,  consequently,  be  desig- 
nated by  ambiguous  titles ;  and  such  language 
would  naturally  be  used  as,  "When  THE  MAN  [the 
Son  of  Man]  comes";  "THE  MAN  will  deliver  us." 
Hence  this  term,  I  imagine,  came  to  signify  the 
Messiah,  but  somewhat  ambiguously.  The  un- 
certainty of  its  application  might  be  increased, 
when  our  Saviour  entered  on  his  ministry  ;  for  het 
simply  as  an  individual  exciting  such  strong  and 

*  See  before,  pp.  243  -  24* 


266       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT, 

general  interest  and  curiosity  by  his  miracles  and 
doctrine,  would,  we  may  easily  suppose,  be  desig- 
nated as  "  the  Man."*  A  term  which  thus  strongly 
intimated,  but  did  not  directly  express,  his  claim  to 
be  that  great  ministei  of  God  whom  the  Jews  had 
been  expecting,  was  well  suited  to  the  circum- 
stances in  which  he  was  placed ;  and  was,  in  con- 
sequence, adopted  by  him  as  a  title  appropriate  to 
himself.  With  these  views,  I  would  not  however 
object  to  the  common  rendering,  "  the  Son  of 
Man,"  if  it  be  so  familiar  as  to  make  a  change 
unpleasant,  except  in  passages  like  that  before  us, 
in  which,  by  giving  a  verbal  instead  of  a  true  ren- 
dering, the  sense  is  obscured.  "  God,"  says  our 
Saviour  in  this  passage,  "  has  intrusted  me  with 
authority  to  pass  condemnation,  because  I  am  the 
Man  " ;  intending  by  this  to  express,  in  language 
which  somewhat  veiled  his  meaning,  that  he  was 
that  last  minister  of  God  whom  the  Jews  had 
hoped  for  under  the  name  of  "the  Messiah,"  or 
"  the  Anointed."  Messiah,  or  Anointed,  it  may  be 
observed,  is  a  common  name,  as  well  as  Man;  and 
the  former  term,  equally  with  the  latter,  could  be- 
come the  designation  of  a  particular  individual 
only  from  the  manner  of  its  application.! 

*  "We  may  observe  an  analogous  use  of  language  in  the  First  Epis- 
tle of  John,  in  which  Christ  is  designated  simply  by  the  pronoun  "  He," 
without  any  previous  mention  of  his  name  to  which  the  pronoun  can 
refer.  See  1  John  ii.  12 ;  iii.  5,  7,  16.  [Compare  Noyes's  note  on 
Job  v.  1.] 

t  [Mr.  Norton,  in  his  Translation  of  the  Gospels,  has  given  a  very 
different  rendering  of  the  27th  and  28th  verses  of  this  chapter,  as  fol- 
low* :  "  And  he  has  intrusted  him  with  authority  to  pass  condemna- 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   267 

"  Be  not  astonished  at  this ;  for  the  hour  is  com- 
ing in  which  all  who  are  in  their  tombs  shall  hear 
his  voice,  and  come  forth ;  those  who  have  done 
good,  to  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  those  who 
have  done  evil,  to  the  resurrection  of  condemna- 
tion." (Verses  28, 29.)  The  meaning  of  our  Saviour 
may  be  thus  expressed :  Be  not  astonished  at  what 
I  have  told  you,  that  God  has  appointed  me  as 
his  minister,  to  announce  whom  he  approves,  and 
whom  he  condemns,  and  to  afford  to  all  the  means 

tion  also.    Because  he  is  a  son  of  man,  marvel  not  at  this  ;  for  the 
hour  is  coming,"  &c. 

His  note  on  the  passage  is  this  :  — 

"  The  meaning  is,  Do  not  marvel  that  I,  though  only  a  man,  claim 
such  connection  with  God,  or  that  I  claim  to  be  charged  with  such  a 
ministry  by  him,  and  to  be  intrusted  with  such  authority  from  him, — 
for  the  character  of  my  ministry  may  be  announced  in  a  manner  still 
more  striking.  All  men  are,  as  it  were,  to  be  called  from  their  tombs 
by  my  voice,  and  to  rise  to  blessedness  or  to  condemnation,  as  they 
have  obeyed  or  disobeyed  those  laws  which  I  teach. 

"In  connecting  the  words  in  the  manner  shown  in  the  translation 
which  I  have  given,  their  meaning  is  obvious,  and  suitable  to  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  discourse.  As  regards  the  more  common  render- 
ing, '  He  has  given  him  authority  to  execute  judgment  also,  because 
he  is  the  Son  of  Man,'  or  '  because  he  is  a  son  of  man,'  I  know  of 
no  satisfactory  or  probable  explanation  of  the  latter  clause.  The 
absence  of  the  article  in  Greek  before  the  words  rendered  '  son  of 
man'  forbids  their  being  rendered  'the  Son  of  Man.'  The  con- 
nection of  the  clauses  which  I  have  adopted  is  sanctioned  by  the 
Syriac  translator  of  the  New  Testament,  by  Chrysostom,  Theophy- 
lact,  and  Euthymius  Zigabenas. 

"John  could  not  have  inverted  the  order  of  the  clauses  without 
producing  ambiguity,  on  account  of  the  recurrence  of  ort,  and  ita 
common  use  after  TOVTO  as  an  explanatory  particle." 

The  paragraph  in  the  text  has  not  been  cancelled,  it  being  desira- 
ble to  retain  the  remarks  on  the  meaning  of  the  term  "  Son  of  Man," 
which  are  not  affected  by  the  rendering  of  this  particular  passage.] 
27* 


268       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

of  passing  from  death  to  life ;  —  Be  not  astonished 
at  this,  for,  in  truth,  the  future  condition  of  all  will 
be  determined  by  their  obedience  or  disobedience 
to  the  laws  of  my  religion,  which  are  the  laws  of 
God.  They  shall  be  judged  by  this  standard,  as 
if  they  were  called  from  their  tombs  by  my  voice 
to  be  judged  in  person  by  me.  This  mode  of  un- 
lerstanding  the  passage  will  be  still  further  illus- 
trated by  what  follows. 

IT  is  a  common  figure  in  the  New  Testament  to 
speak  of  Christ  personally,  when  his  religion,  under 
some  one  of  its  aspects,  effects,  or  relations,  is  in- 
tended ;  and  this  is  sometimes  done  when  the  ex- 
pression is  such  as  our  use  of  language  does  not 
allow.  St.  Paul  addresses  the  Colossians,  accord- 
ing to  a  verbal  rendering,  thus  (ii.  6,  7) :  "  As,  then, 
ye  have  received  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  walk  in 
him,  rooted  and  grounded  in  him."  He  exhorts 
them  (iii.  13)  to  forgive  each  other,  "  as  Christ  had 
forgiven  them  " ;  not  referring  to  any  forgiveness 
from  Christ  in  person,  but  to  the  forgiveness  of 
their  past  sins  upon  their  becoming  sincere  Chris- 
tians. He  says  to  the  churches  addressed  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  churches  to  which  Jesus 
had  never  preached  (iv.  20,  21) :  "  You  have  not  so 
learned  Christ,  since  you  have  heard  him  and  been 
taught  by  him  as  the  truth  is  in  Jesus."  He  speaks 
to  the  Romans  of  the  "spirit  of  Christ,"  that  is, 
"the  spirit  of  Christianity,"  dwelling  in  them  ;  and 
the  expression,  "that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your 
hearts,"  is  elsewhere  (Ephesians  iii.  17)  used  by 


EXPLANATION?    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       269 

him.  He  writes  to  the  Corinthians  (1  Ep.  xv.  18) 
of  those  "  who  have  fallen  asleep  in  Christ,"  mean- 
ing, those  who  have  died  "  being  Christians";  for 
"  to  be  in  Christ "  is  a  common  phrase  in  his  Epis- 
tles for  "  being  a  Christian."  He  tells  the  Philip- 
pians  (i.  8),  "  God  is  my  witness  how  earnestly  I 
love  you  all  ev  crTrXay^i/ot?  Xpia-Tov  'I^o-ou,"  words 
which,  from  the  difference  in  our  modes  of  expres- 
sion, do  not  admit  of  a  verbal  translation  into  our 
language ;  but  the  meaning  of  which  is  "  with 
Christian  tenderness."  Again  he  says  to  them 
(i.  21),  «'  For  to  me  life  is  Christ,  and  death  is 
gain  "  ;  that  is,  "  My  life  is  devoted  to  the  cause  of 
Christ,  to  the  promotion  of  his  religion."  In  the 
same  Epistle  (iii.  8)  are  these  words  :  "  I  have  suf- 
fered the  loss  of  all  these  things,  counting  them 
but  as  refuse,  that  I  might  win  Christ " ;  where  the 
expression,  "  to  win  Christ,"  means  "  to  secure  the 
blessings  of  Christianity."  To  the  Galatians,  he 
writes  (iii.  27,  28),  "  Whoever  of  you  has  been 
baptized  to  Christ,  has  put  on  Christ";  that  is, 
as  appears  from  the  connection,  "  is  entitled  to  all 
the  privileges  of  a  Christian."  The  Apostle  pro- 
ceeds :  "  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile,  neither 
slave  nor  freeman,  neither  male  nor  female ;  but 
you  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus," — "you  are  all 
on  an  equality  as  Christians."  So  also  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  speaks  of  "Jesus 
Christ,  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever," 
intending  by  those  words  to  express  the  unchange- 
abhness  of  Christian  truth.* 

*    [Hebrews  xiii.  8 ;  compare  verse  9.] 


270   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

I  have  perhaps  brought  together  more  examples 
than  are  necessary,  of  a  common  form  of  expres- 
sion. Our  Saviour  himself  uses  language  in  a 
similar  manner.  By  a  figure  of  speech,  he  refers 
to  himself  personally  the  effects  of  his  religion,  the 
divine  power  exerted  in  its  establishment,  and  the 
operation  of  those  laws  of  God's  moral  govern- 
ment which  it  announces.  Thus  he  says  (Mat- 
thew x.  34) :  "  Think  not  that  I  came  to  bring 
peace  on  earth.  I  came  riot  to  bring  peace,  but 
a  sword."  So  also  in  Luke  (xii.  49) :  "  I  came  to 
cast  fire  on  the  earth  ;  and  what  would  I,  since 
it  has  already  been  kindled  ?  "  In  these  passages, 
every  one  understands  that'  our  Saviour  speaks  of 
the  effects  of  his  religion,  and  not  of  anything  to 
be  accomplished  by  his  immediate  agency.  In 
like  manner,  when  he  declares  that  he  has  come 
"  to  save  the  world,"  he  refers  to  the  power  of  his 
religion  in  delivering  'men  from  ignorance,  error, 
sin,  and  their  attendant  evils.  "  For  God,"  it  is 
said,  "  did  not  send  his  Son  into  the  world  to  con- 
demn the  world,  but  that  through  him  the  world 
may  be  saved.  He  who  has  faith  in  him  is  not 
condemned ;  but  he  who  has  not  faith  is  already 
under  condemnation,  for  not  having  faith  in  the 
only  Son  of  God.  And  the  ground  of  condemna- 
tion is  this,  that,  the  light  having  come  into  the 
world,  men  preferred  the  darkness  to  the  light;  for 
their  deeds  were  evil."*  This  passage  shows  how 
men  are  to  be  saved  by  Christ,  namely,  by  their 
own  act  in  believing  and  obeying  him ;  and  is 

*  John  iii.  17-19. 


EXPLANAIIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       271 

also  one  of  those  which  explain  what  is  meant  by 
his  figurative  language  when  he  speaks  of  judging 
and  condemning  men. 

"  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life."*  In  what 
sense  our  Saviour  used  these  sublime  words  may 
appear  from  what  immediately  follows.  "  He  who 
has  faith  in  me,  though  he  die,  will  live ;  and  who- 
ever lives  and  has  faith  in  me  will  never  die." 
Christ  is  the  resurrection  and  the  life,  because 
through  faith  in  him,  through  a  practical  belief  of 
the  truths  which  he  taught,  eternal  life  is  to  be 
obtained.  Thus  he  afterwards  says  (John  xii.  49, 
50):  "For  I  have  not  spoken  from  myself;  but 
He  who  sent  me,  the  Father  himself,  has  given  me 
in  charge  what  I  should  enjoin,  and  what  I  should 
teach  ;  and  I  know  that  WHAT  HE  HAS  CHARGED 
ME  WITH  is  eternal  life";  that  is,  it  affords  the 
means  of  attaining  eternal  life. 

He  says  to  the  Jews,  in  reference  to  those  Gen- 
tiles who  would  embrace  his  religion  (John  x.  16) : 
"  I  have  other  sheep,  which  are  not  of  this  fold ; 
those  too  I  must  bring  in,  and  they  will  hearken 
to  my  voice,  and  there  will  be  one  flock  and  one 
shepherd."  In  these  words  he  does  not  mean  to 
assert  his  own  personal  agency  in  the  conversion 
of  the  Gentiles ;  they  were  not  literally  to  hear  his 
voice ;  but  they  were  to  be  converted  by  the 
preaching  of  his  religion.  There  is  a  similar  fig- 
ure in  the  words  (John  xii.  32),  "  And  I,  when  I 
shall  be  raised  up  from  the  earth,  shall  draw  alJ 
men  to  me." 

•  John  xi.  25. 


272       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

In  his  most  affecting  conversation  with  his  dis- 
ciples, the  evening  before  his  crucifixion,  he  tells 
them  (John  xiv.  18,  19),  "  I  will  not  leave  you 
fatherless.  I  am  coming  to  you  again.  A  little 
while  only,  and  the  world  will  see  me  no  more ; 
but  you  will  see  me.  Inasmuch  as  I  am  blessed, 
you  will  be  blessed  also."  Here,  as  I  have  before 
had  occasion  to  explain,  our  Saviour  refers,  not  to 
any  personal  presence  with  his  disciples,  but  to  his 
presence  with  them  in  the  power  of  his  religion, 
his  presence  to  their  minds  and  hearts. 

In  other  instances,  Jesus  uses  what  may  be 
technically  called  "an  equivalent  figure,"  by  which 
I  mean  figurative  language  not  intended  to  corre- 
spond to  the  real  state  of  things  except  so  far  as 
to  produce  an  effect  upon  the  mind  equivalent  to 
what  that  might  produce  if  distinctly  apprehended. 
Thus  he  tells  his  disciples  (John  xiv.  2,  3),  "  There 
are  many  rooms  in  my  Father's  house.  Were  it 
not  so,  should  I  have  told  you  that  I  am  going 
there  to  prepare  a  place  for  you  ?  And  when  I 
have  gone  and  prepared  a  place  for  you,  I  am 
coming  again,  and  will  take  you  to  myself,  that 
where  I  am,  you  may  be  also."  When  Jesus  thus 
speaks  of  preparing  a  place  for  his  disciples,  and, 
after  preparation,  returning  to  take  them  with  him, 
he  uses  figurative  terms  which  do  not  admit  of 
being  transformed  into  literal.  The  general  effect 
of  the  language,  its  aggregate  significance,  if  I 
may  so  speak,  is  alone  to  be  regarded.  The 
meaning  is,  Your  future  blessedness  will  be  as 
great,  and  is  as  certain,  as  if  it  were  prepared  for 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,   273 

you  by  me,  your  Master  and  friend,  and  you  were 
assured  that  I  should  return  in  person  to  conduct 
you  to  it. 

In  a  similar  manner  we  are  to  understand  an- 
other declaration  of  Jesus,  already  noticed,  which 
has  been  erroneously  explained  (Matthew  xviii.  19, 
20) :  "  Again,  I  say  to  you,  If  two  of  you  agree  on 
earth  concerning  everything  which  they  ask,  their 
prayers  will  be  granted  by  my  Father  in  Heaven. 
For  where  two  or  three  come  together  as  my 
disciples,  there  am  I  among  them."  By  this,  as  I 
have  said,*  our  Saviour  intended  that  the  prayers 
of  his  followers  for  the  promotion  of  his  cause,  for 
the  guidance  and  aid  necessary  to  them  as  his  min- 
isters, would  be  granted  as  if  they  were  his  own, 
as  if  he  himself  were  praying  with  them. 

In  order  to  explain  some  other  passages  in  which 
our  Saviour  speaks  figuratively  of  his  personal 
agency,  it  is  necessary  to  attend  to  a  new  con- 
sideration. The  Jews  had  been  accustomed  to 
designate  the  dispensation  which  they  expected 
from  their  Messiah  as  "  the  kingdom  of  the  Mes- 
siah," or  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  or  "  of  Heaven." 
This  language,  though  the  conceptions  which  they 
had  attached  to  it  were  erroneous,  was  such  as, 
taken  in  a  figurative  sense,  might  well  describe  the 
Christian  dispensation.  It  was  adopted,  therefore, 
by  our  Saviour,  and  after  him  by  his  Apostles; 
and  to  this  leading  metaphor  of  a  kingdom  much 
of  the  figurative  language  throughout  the  New 

See  before,  pp.  223.  224. 


274       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Testament  is  conformed.  The  establishment  of 
Christianity  in  the  world  is  spoken  of  by  Christ  as 
the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  or  reign  of  the 
Messiah,  or  of  God.  This  event  he  describes,  tig- 
uratively,  as  "  his  coming  to  reign,"  or  simply  as 
"  his  coming,"  that  is,  his  manifestation  to  men  in 
his  true  character. 

Thus  we  find  the  following  language  (Matthew 
xvi.  27,  28) :  "  The  Son  of  Man  is  coming  in  the 
glory  of  his  Father,  with  his  angels ;  and  then  will 
he  render  to  every  one  according  to  his  deeds.  I 
tell  you  in  truth,  There  are  some  here  present  who 
will  not  taste  of  death,  before  they  see  the  Son  of 
Man  entering  on  his  reign."  The  literal  meaning 
of  these  words  may  be  thus  given :  The  kingdom 
of  Heaven,  the  Christian  dispensation,  will  be  es- 
tablished by  a  glorious  display  of  the  power  of 
God ;  and,  being  established,  men  will  be  reward- 
ed or  punished  as  their  actions  conform  to  its 
laws ;  every  one  will  be  judged  by  the  laws  of  its 
king,  the  Son  of  Man ;  and  the  establishment  of 
Christianity  in  the  world  will  be  made  secure  and 
evident  during  the  lifetime  of  some  of  those  now 
present. 

He  is  coming  "with  his  angels."  Angels  were 
conceived  of  by  the  Jews  as  ministers  of  God's 
providence;  and  Christ,  conforming  his  language 
to  their  conceptions,  repeatedly  speaks  of  the  min- 
istry of  angels,  figuratively,  to  denote  some  mani- 
festation of  the  power  of  God.  Thus  he  tells  Na- 
thanael  (John  i.  51),  "  Ye  will  see  heaven  opened, 
and  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and  descending 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   275 

to  the  Son  of  Man "  ;  meaning,  Ye  will  witness 
manifest  proof  of  the  relation  existing  between 
God  and  me,  his  minister.  When  our  Saviour 
speaks  of  his  coming  in  the  glory  of  God,  with  his 
angels,  he  does  not  mean  by  these  figures  to  ex- 
press, that  he  himself  will  appear  in  person  with 
some  visible  and  splendid  display  ;  his  meaning  is 
as  has  been  explained ;  corresponding  to  what  he 
elsewhere  says  (Luke  xvii.  20,  21),  "  The  kingdom 
of  God  is  not  coming  with  any  show  that  may  be 
watched  for ;  nor  will  men  say,  Lo !  it  is  here ;  or, 
Lo !  it  is  there ;  for  lo !  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
within  you." 

IN  relation  to  this  subject,  there  are  still  other 
facts  to  be  attended  to.  With  the  establishment 
of  Christianity  was  connected  the  punishment  of 
the  Jews  for  their  rejection  of  Christ.  They,  in 
return,  were  rejected  by  God.  The  peculiar  rela- 
tion which  they  held  toward  him  was  publicly  ab- 
rogated. As  a  nation  they  ceased  to  exist.  Their 
country  was  ravaged,  they  were  destroyed,  or 
forced  from  it  into  slavery  or  exile ;  Jerusalem  was 
laid  waste,  and  the  temple  burnt  and  thrown  down. 
How  the  establishment  of  Christianity  was  con- 
nected with  these  events,  we  shall  perceive,  if  we 
consider  that  the  Jews  had  been  separated  by  God 
from  other  nations,  to  be  the  subjects  of  a  special 
dispensation,  by  which  he  was  made  known  to 
them  and  they  were  called  to  worship  him.  They 
were,  in  an  obvious  sense  of  the  words,  his  chosen 
people.  But  in  rejecting  Christ  and  refusing  to 


276       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

obey  him,  they  had  virtually  renounced  their  alle- 
giance to  God.  They  had  dissolved  by  their  own 
act  the  connection  that  had  existed  between  Him 
and  them.  They  had,  if  one  may  so  speak,  put 
the  question  at  issue,  whether  they  were  still  in 
favor  with  God,  still  his  peculiar  people,  and  Christ 
were  a  blasphemous  impostor  speaking  falsely  in 
the  name  of  God,  as  they  had  declared  him  to  be ; 
or  whether  Christ  spoke  with  divine  authority,  and 
they  consequently  had  refused  to  submit  to  the 
authority  of  God.  The  peculiar  relation  that  had 
existed  between  God  and  them  was  recognized  by 
Christ  himself ;  to  them  he  was  immediately  sent ; 
his  claims  were  in  the  first  instance  submitted  to 
them ;  and  they  had  rejected  him  as  a  false  Mes- 
siah. The  question  thus  at  issue  must,  it  would 
seem,  receive  a  public  and  solemn  decision,  before 
the  evidence  of  Christianity  could  be  considered  as 
complete ;  and  this  decision  was  made  by  God  in 
the  rejection  and  punishment  of  the  nation. 

This  punishment,  it  is  further  to  be  recollected, 
had  been  announced  by  Christ.  He  had  thus  sus- 
pended the  completion  of  the  full  evidence  of  his 
divine  mission  till  the  accomplishment  of  his  proph- 
ecy. When  that  took  place,  the  series  of  proofs 
might  be  considered  as  closed,  and  his  religion  as 
established. 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  Jews  were  the  bitter  ene- 
mies of  Christianity ;  and  it  was  against  persecu- 
tion from  them  alone  that  the  religion  had  first  to 
struggle.  In  their  opposition  to  it  they  had  a  van- 
tage-ground which  none  of  its  subsequent  enemies 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       277 

Assessed.  They  claimed  to  know  the  character 
and  purposes  of  God,  and  to  be  the  proper  judges 
of  a  prophet  pretending  to  be  sent  from  him  to 
their  nation.  In  the  view  of  many  Gentiles,  the 
question  at  issue  between  the  Jews  and  Christ 
was,  without  doubt,  regarded  as  "a  question  of 
their  own  superstition,"*  which  it  was  for  them  to 
decide.  Now  from  this  opposition  and  persecu- 
tion, of  a  nature  to  be  so  injurious  to  the  growth 
of  the  new  religion,  Christianity  was  relieved  by 
the  destruction  of  the  nation.  It  no  longer  ap- 
peared as  an  offshoot  from  Judaism,  but  assumed 
its  independent  character,  not  deriving  support 
from  the  preceding  dispensation,  but  throwing 
back  evidence  upon  it. 

Thus  it  appears  in  what  manner  the  estab- 
lishment of  Christianity  was  connected  with  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  nation  ;  and  why  our 
Saviour  sometimes  speaks  of  the  events  as  simul- 
taneous. This  is  the  case  throughout  the  proph- 
ecy in  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  Matthew,  so 
far  as  it  relates  to  the  calamities  coming  upon  the 
Jews.f  In  this  there  are  some  passages  that  strik- 
ingly illustrate  the  modes  of  expression  elsewhere 
used  by  Christ.  He  evidently  speaks  of  his  own 
coming  and  presence,  figuratively,  in  the  Oriental 
language  of  poetry  and  prophecy ;  and,  in  the  same 
use  of  language,  refers  to  his  own  personal  agency 

*  Acts  xxv.  19  ;  compare  xviii.  15. 

t  [For  an  explanation  of  the  latter  part  of  this  chapter  (vv.  42  •  51), 
which  relates  to  a  different  subject,  see  Mr.  Norton's  Notes  o  i  the 
Gospels.] 


278       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

events  which  were  not  to  be  effected  by  it,  bat 
were  to  be  accomplished  in  his  cause  by  God. 

After  warning  his  disciples  against  being  de- 
ceived by  those  who  would  falsely  claim  the  char- 
acter of  the  Messiah,  (his  character,  I  conceive,  as 
a  deliverer  from  the  tyranny  of  the  Romans,)  he 
says :  "  Should  they  say  to  you,  Lo !  he  [the  Mes- 
siah] is  in  some  solitary  place ;  go  not  forth  :  Lo ! 
he  is  in  some  private  chamber ;  believe  it  not. 
For  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  will  be  like 
the  lightning  which  flashes  from  the  east  to  the 
west,"*  —  as  apparent  and  splendid.  The  mean- 
ing is,  For  the  evidence  which  God  will  afford  for 
the  establishment  of  my  religion  will  be  the  most 
conspicuous  and  unequivocal. 

In  what  immediately  follows,  after  predicting 
the  extinction  of  the  Jewish  nation  in  language  of 
which  we  have  abundant  examples  in  the  Hebrew 
prophets,  that  is,  in  the  strongest  figures  represent- 
ing a  day  of  utter  darkness,!  he  proceeds :  "  And 


*  Matthew  xxiv.  26,  27. 

t  "A  day  of  darkness"  is  an  obvious  figure  for  a  "day  of  distress." 
Hence,  in  the  Oriental  style,  a  time  of  utter  calamity,  the  destruction 
of  a  nation,  is  described  by  the  extinction  of  the  sun  and  the  other 
lights  of  heaven.  Thus  Isaiah  (ch.  xiii.  9,  10),  in  speaking  of  the  de- 
struction of  Babylon,  says  :  — 

"Behold,  the  day  of  Jehovah  is  coming,  cruel  with  wrath  and  fierce 
anger,  to  lay  the  land  desolate  and  to  destroy  its  sinners  out  of  it 

"  For  the  stars  of  heaven  and  its  constellations  shall  not  give  their 
light,  the  sun  shall  be  darkened  in  his  going  forth,  and  the  moon  shall 
not  cause  her  light  to  shine." 

So  also  Ezekiel,  describing  the  fall  of  Egypt  (ch.  xxxii.  7, 8) :  — 

"And  when  I  shall  put  thee  out,  I  will  cover  the  heaven,  and  make 
its  stars  dark.  I  will  cover  the  sun  with  a  cloud,  and  the  moon  shall 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   279 

then  THE  SIGN  of  the  Son  of  Man  will  appear  in 
heaven  ;  and  then  all  the  tribes  of  the  land  wi1) 
beat  their  breasts,  when  they  shall  see  the  Son  of 
Man  coming  upon  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  power 
and  great  glory."  The  Jews  had  repeatedly  de- 
manded of  Christ  a  sign  from  heaven  ;  that  is,  a 
miracle  conspicuous  in  the  heavens,  or  apparently 
having  its  origin  there.  This,  for  some  reason  or 
other,  they  pretended  to  regard  as  what  might 
afford  clear  proof  of  his  being  the  Messiah,  such 
proof  as  his  other  works  did  not  furnish.  They 
made  the  refusal  of  this  sign  one  main  pretext  of 
their  unbelief.  «  The  Jews,"  says  St.  Paul,  «  de- 
mand signs."*  In  St.  John's  Gospel  the  Jews  are 
represented  as  comparing  Christ  with  Moses,  and 
asking,  u  What  sign  do  you  show  us,  that  we  may 
give  you  credit  ?  What  do  you  perform  ?  Our 
fathers  ate  the  manna  in  the  desert ;  as  it  is  writ- 
ten, He  gave  them  bread  FROM  HEAVEN  to  eat."^  It 
is  in  reference,  I  think,  to  this  demand  of  the  Jews, 
that  our  Saviour  says,  "  Then  THE  SIGN  of  the  Son 
of  Man  will  appear  in  heaven  ";  intending  by  these 
words,  that  the  most  conspicuous  proof  would  then 
be  given  of  his  divine  mission.  This  proof,  he  ex- 
presses in  what  follows,  would  be  a  display  of 
God's  providence  in  the  establishment  of  his  ro- 

not  give  her  light;  all  the  hright  lights  of  heaven  will  I  make  dark 
over  thee,  and  spread  darkness  over  thy  land." 

Itfis  unnecessary  to  quote  at  length  more  examples  of  this  fignra- 
tive  language.  Others  may  be  found,  Isaiah  xxxiv.  4;  Jeremiah  XT 
9 ;  Joel  ii.  30,  31  ;  iii.  15  ;  Amos  viii.  9. 

*  1  Corinthians  i.  22. 

t  John  vi.  30,  31. 


280       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

ligion,  which  would  cause  all  the  inhabitants  of 
the  land  to  lament.  It  would  be  his  triumph  and 
their  desolation.  He  describes  it  under  the  figure 
of  his  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  great 
power  and  glory. 

This  is  one  of  those  passages  which  may  teach 
us  how  such  figurative  language  is  to  be  under- 
stood. There  was  no  visible  appearance  of  our 
Saviour  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  nor  have 
we  reason  to  ascribe  the  punishment  of  the  Jews 
in  any  degree  to  his  personal  agency.  No  such 
visible  appearance  took  place  before  the  generation 
then  living  had  passed  away.  Yet  all  the  events 
which  it  was  his  purpose  to  predict  occurred  dur- 
ing that  period.  After  what  has  been  quoted,  he 
says  (verse  34) :  "  I  tell  you  in  truth,  that  they  will 
all  take  place  before  this  generation  passes  away." 
It  is,  then,  the  power  of  God  displayed  in  his 
cause,  which  he  speaks  of  figuratively  as  his  own. 
Thus,  likewise,  we  are  to  understand  his  words 
when  he  says,  in  his  last  charge  to  his  disciples 
^  Matthew  xxviii.  18),  "  All  power  is  given  me  in 
heaven  and  on  earth  " ;  where  he  ascribes  to  hirp  • 
self  personally  the  power  of  God  which  would  b^ 
exerted  in  the  support  of  Christianity. 

After  the  prediction  of  the  destruction  of  Jeru 
salem,  our  Saviour  in  the  next  chapter  (Matthew 
xxv.)  represents  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  or  Chris- 
tianity, as  established  and  in  operation.  All  are 
to  be  judged  by  its  laws,  the  laws  of  God's  moral 
government.  Some  will  be  rewarded,  and  some 
punished,  all  according  to  their  deeds.  After  hia 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       281 

enforcing  this  truth  in  two  parables,  follows  that 
most  solemn  and  impressive  description,  in  which 
he  represents  himself  personally  as  the  Judge  of 
men.  It  contains  a  most  important  truth  envel- 
oped in  a  most  striking  figure.  It  is  a  scenical 
representation,  adapted  powerfully  to  affect  the 
minds  of  his  immediate  hearers,  and  our  own. 
The  naked  truth  here  taught  is  the  most  impor- 
tant, the  most  practical  truth  of  religion,  —  that 
which  concerns  us  the  most  deeply ;  it  is,  that  our 
happiness  or  misery  is  to  be  determined  by  our- 
selves, by  the  conformity  of  our  conduct  to  the 
will  of  God,  which  Christ  has  revealed.  The  sol- 
emn imagery  in  which  this  truth  is  presented  is 
but  an  expansion  of  the  figure  that  our  Saviour 
had  before  used  :  "  The  Son  of  Man  is  coming  in 
the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  his  angels ;  and  then 
will  he  render  to  every  one  according  to  his  deeds." 
What  was  predicted  in  these  words  was  to  take 
place  while  some  who  heard  him  were  still  living : 
"  I  tell  you  in  truth,  There  are  some  here  present 
who  will  not  taste  of  death,  before  they  see  the 
Son  of  Man  entering  on  his  reign."  While  the 
generation  then  living  continued  on  earth,  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven  was  to  be  established,  the 
Messiah  was  to  assume  his  reign,  and  men  were 
to  be  judged  by  his  laws.*  It  may  be  observed, 
that  the  figure  which  connects  his  judging  in  per- 
son with  his  assuming  his  reign,  would  be  obvious 

*  [Compare  the  note  on  Matthew  xxv.  in  Mr.  Norton's  Notes  on 
the  Gospels ;  and  in  regard  to  the  figurative  use  of  language  here 
Illustrated,  see,  further,  his  note  on  Matthew  xiii.  36  -  43.] 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

to  an  Oriental ;  the  ancient  custom  having  been 
for  kings  to  sit  in  person  as  judges.  Hence,  both 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  the  verb  "to  judge '* 
is  not  unfrequently  used  as  equivalent  to  the  verb 
"  to  reign  "  or  "  to  rule." 

BUT  this  language  is  highly  figurative  ;  and  why. 
it  may  be  asked,  was  such  language  used  by  our 
Saviour,  language  of  which  the  purport  is  liable  to 
be  misunderstood  ?  The  answer  is,  that,  in  the 
first  place,  the  ESSENTIAL  meaning  of  the  words, 
that  meaning  which  is  of  the  deepest  interest  to 
all,  may  be  readily  understood.  It  is  clearly  taught, 
that  every  man  will  receive  according  to  his  deeds; 
that  our  condition  in  the  future  life  will  be  deter- 
mined by  our  character  in  the  present.  To  account 
for  the  imagery  in  which  this  truth  is  presented,  we 
must  look  to  the  intellectual  habits  and  culture  of 
those  addressed.  The  contemporaries  and  country- 
men of  Christ  clothed  their  conceptions  in  language 
very  different  from  that  with  which  we  are  familiar. 
To  them,  Oriental  fashions  of  speech  were  vernacu- 
lar. They  were  to  be  addressed  through  their  feel- 
ings and  imagination.  The  great  body  of  the  Jews, 
unaccustomed  to  any  exercise  of  the  understanding, 
had  scarcely  the  power  of  apprehending  a  truth 
presented  to  them  as  a  philosophical  abstraction, 
in  its  naked  and  literal  form.  An  array  of  figures 
was  required  to  command  their  attention.  It  was 
necessary  that  the  doctrine  taught  should  be  incor 
porated,  as  it  were,  in  images  obvious  to  sight,  in 
order  to  affect  their  minds.  The  ideas  presented 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   283 

were  to  be  conveyed  in  a  manner  adapted  to  their 
conceptions  and  associations,  to  their  capacity  of 
comprehending  and  feeling.  A  teacher,  divine  or 
human,  who  should  have  explained  the  truths  of 
religion  in  the  language  of  Locke  or  of  Butler, 
would  have  found  no  hearers  on  the  shores  of 
Gennesaret  or  within  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  Our 
Saviour,  had  he  been  addressing  a  small  body  of 
philosophers,  would  undoubtedly  have  expressed 
himself  in  a  manner  very  different  from  that  in 
which  he  spoke  to  the  Jewish  multitudes,  or  even 
to  his  own  disciples.  I  say  in  a  very  different 
manner;  for  the  essential  truths  of  religion  could 
not  have  been  more  distinctly  made  known  by  him. 
But  his  language,  it  may  be  said,  is  now  liable 
to  be  misunderstood  by  us.  Certainly  it  is  so, 
upon  some  points  of  minor  importance,  if  we  will 
not  exercise  our  reason  upon  the  subject ;  and  he 
is  in  a  great  error  who  supposes  that  any  rule 
can  be  laid  down  for  the  study  of  the  Scriptures, 
which  shall  supersede  the  exercise  of  investigation, 
thought,  and  judgment.  Except  in  treating  of  the 
exact  sciences,  the  very  nature  of  language  ren- 
ders impossible  such  a  use  of  it  as  will  preclude 
all  liability  to  be  misunderstood.  The  impression 
which  it  makes,  the  ideas  which  it  excites,  in  him 
who  hears  or  reads  it,  depend  upon  the  previous 
state  of  his  own  mind.  In  proportion  as  one  is 
prepared  to  apprehend  a  subject  as  it  was  appre- 
hended by  him  who  spoke  or  wrote,  he  will  be 
more  likely  to  receive  the  meaning  designed.  In 
passing  from  one  age  to  another,  or  from  one  na 


284 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


tion  to  another,  the  significance  of  language  varies 
with  the  ever-varying  conceptions  of  men.  Our 
Saviour  often  left  his  words  to  be  explained  by 
subsequent  events,  or  to  be  rightly  apprehended  as 
the  minds  of  his  hearers  acquired  power  to  accom- 
modate themselves  to  the  truth.  During  his  min- 
istry, his  Apostles  often  misunderstood  him ;  and  it 
was  not  till  many  years  after  his  ascension,  that 
they  comprehended  the  purport  of  the  simple  di- 
rection, "  Go  and  make  disciples  from  all  nations"; 
and  then  only  in  consequence  of  a  new  miracle. 

THE  language  of  Christ  respecting  his  future 
coming  and  his  judgment  of  men  was  likewise,  I 
believe,  misunderstood  by  his  Apostles.  Interpret- 
ing it  literally,  they  anticipated  a  personal  and 
visible  return  of  their  Master  to  earth  at  no  dis- 
tant period,  when  he  would  appear  as  the  Judge 
of  mankind.  This  is  a  subject  necessary  to  be 
explained  in  connection  with  the  views  that  have 
been  given  of  the  meaning  of  Christ,  which  would 
be  otherwise  imperfect  and  unsatisfactory.  At  the 
same  time,  it  is  a  subject  involving  considerations 
of  great  importance.  But  its  discussion  in  this 
place  would  too  much  interrupt  the  train  of  the 
present  argument ;  and  I  shall,  therefore,  treat  of  it 
in  an  Appendix  to  this  volume.* 

I  MAY  here  take  notice,  however,  of  the  argument 
founded  by  Trinitarians  upon  the  conceptions  of 
the  Apostles  respecting  the  judgment  of  mankind 

*  [See  Appendix,  Note  B.] 


/" 

EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.     285    - 

\<f-    .,     "^ 

by  Christ.  It  has  been  contended  by  them,  tha 
what  the  Apostles  expected  is  still  future ;  that 
Christ  is  hereafter  to  judge  all  men  in  person ; 
that,  in  order  to  this,  he  must  be  acquainted  with 
every  thought  and  action  of  every  individual;  that 
such  knowledge  supposes  omniscience ;  that  om- 
niscience is  the  attribute  of  God  alone ;  and  that 
Christ,  therefore,  is  God.  Without  examining  any 
of  the  other  steps  in  this  argument,  one  need  only 
remark  upon  the  very  limited  notion  which  it  im- 
plies  of  omniscience  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the 
power  of  God  on  the  other.  The  knowledge  of  all 
thoughts  and  deeds  which  have  taken  place  in  this 
world  from  its  creation  would  be,  compared  with 
OMNISCIENCE,  less  than  the  acquaintance  that  a 
child  may  have  with  its  nu.rsery,  compared  with 
the  apprehensions  of  an  archangel.  Would  it, 
then,  be  an  act  transcending  the  power  of  God  to 
communicate  that  knowledge?  Could  he  not  give 
to  one  man  a  perfect  acquaintance  with  one  other? 
And  if  this  be  possible,  is  his  power  still  so  bound- 
ed, that  he  could  not  give  to  one  who  had  been 
a  man,  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  thoughts  and 
deeds  of  all  other  men  who  have  lived  ? 

In  urging  such  obvious  arguments  as  these,  there 
is  a  humiliating  consciousness  of  the  weakness  of 
the  cause  we  are  opposing.  One  may  feel  as  if  he 
were  wasting  reasoning  upon  a  subject  unworthy 
of  it ;  as  if  his  remarks  implied  a  want  of  common 
intelligence  in  his  readers ;  as  if  he  were  exposed 
to  the  same  ridicule,  as  he  who  should  gravely  and 
earnestly  labor  the  proof  of  an  undeniable  propo- 


286       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

sition.  But  the  same  is  the  case  with  all  direct 
reasoning  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  and 
one  can  reconcile  himself  to  the  discussion  of  it 
only  by  considering,  not  what  that  doctrine  is  in 
itself,  but  how  widely  and  how  long  it  has  pre- 
vailed, how  obstinately  it  is  still  professed,  and  the 
manifold  mischiefs  which  have  flowed  and  are  still 
flowing  from  it. 


CLASS    VI. 

Passages  misinterpreted  through  inattention  to  the 
peculiar  characteristics  of  the  modes  of  expression 
in  the  New  Testament. 

CORRESPONDING  to  what  has  been  already  said, 
the  modes  of  expression  in  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  are  often  different  from  those  which  we 
should  use  at  the  present  day  to  express  the  same 
essential  meaning.  All  our  habits  of  life,  all  the 
habits  of  our  minds,  our  conceptions,  our  modes  of 
apprehension,  our  associations  of  thought,  are  more 
or  less  unlike  those  of  their  writers,  or  of  the  in- 
dividuals for  whom  the  books  were  primarily 
intended.  Our  imaginations  are  familiar  with 
different  objects ;  our  feelings  are  excited  by  other 
causes  ;  our  minds  are  occupied  by  other  subjects. 
While  the  essential  truths  of  religion,  as  taught  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles,  have  remained  unchanged 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       287 

and  unchangeable,  the  sphere  of  human  knowl- 
edge has  widened,  and  philosophy  has  made  great 
advances.  A  gradual  change  has  been  taking 
place  in  the  character  of  men's  ideas ;  they  are 
combined  in  different  aggregates,  they  are  em- 
bodied in  other  forms  of  language,  they  are  better 
defined,  they  stand  in  different  relations  to  each 
other.  Let  any  one  recollect  and  bring  together 
what  he  may  know  of  the  half-civilized  inhabitants 
of  Galilee,  of  the  bigoted  Jews  of  Jerusalem,  or  of 
the  Christian  converts  from  heathenism  at  Corinth 
or  Ephesus ;  and  he  will  perceive  that  they  were 
men,  who,  in  their  ways  of  thinking  and  feeling,  in 
their  opinions  and  prejudices,  in  their  degree  of 
information,  in  their  power  of  comprehending  truth, 
in  the  influences  to  which  they  had  been  subject, 
and  in  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed, 
were  very  unlike  an  intelligent  reader  of  the  New 
Testament  at  the  present  day.  The  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  partook  of  the  character  of  their 
age  and  nation.  Their  circumstances,  likewise, 
were  in  the  highest  degree  peculiar,  and  produced 
corresponding  feelings,  which  we  cannot  fully  ap- 
prehend without  an  effort  pf  thought  and  imagina- 
tion. They  were  Jews,  accustomed  to  strong  Ori- 
ental modes  of  speech,  and  to  figurative  language 
of  a  kind  not  familiar  to  us,  and  the  force  of  which, 
therefore,  we  are  liable  to  misapprehend.  All  these 
circumstances  contributed  to  produce  a  style  of  ex- 
pression in  the  New  Testament  which  is  not  to  be 
judged  of  by  the  standard  of  our  own.  We  may 
satisfy  ourselves  that  we  have  ascertained  the  true 

29 


288       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

meaning  of  a  writer,  even  when  his  language  varies 
much  from  that  which  the  habits  of  our  time  might 
lead  us  to  adopt  in  conveying  the  same  ideas. 

Of  passages  that  bear  the  stamp  of  what,  in  a 
wide  sense  of  the  term,  one  may  call  the  Oriental 
style  of  the  New  Testament,  we  have  already  had 
many  examples  under  the  preceding  heads,  par- 
ticularly under  the  last.  I  now  propose  to  explain 
a  few  passages  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians 
and  Colossians;  two  epistles  written  probably  at 
the  same  time,  having  a  striking  likeness,  and  serv- 
ing to  illustrate  each  other.  That  which  goes 
under  the  name  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 
was  probably  a  circular  epistle  sent  to  different 
churches  in  Asia  Minor.  They  were  written  from 
Rome  late  in  the  life  of  the  Apostle,  just  aboui 
the  termination  of  his  first  imprisonment  in  that 
city.  They  were  addressed  to  Christians  who 
were  principally  converts  from  heathenism.  One 
main  object  of  the  Apostle  was  to  impress  them 
with  a  deep  sense  of  the  blessings  they  had  re- 
ceived solely  through  the  favor  of  God,  of  the 
value  of  their  religion,  and  of  the  relations  in 
which  its  teacher  stood  to  God  and  to  his  follow- 
ers; and  thus  to  prevent  them  from  confounding  it 
with  any  human  doctrine,  and  modifying  it,  or 
adding  to  it,  from  heathen  philosophy  or  the  super- 
stitions of  the  Jews.  He  was  earnest  to  make 
them  feel  how  intimately  they  were  connected 
with  Christ,  and  to  direct  their  thoughts  to  hirr 
as,  under  God,  the  only  source  of  their  knowledge, 
blessings,  and  hopes. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  239 

There  was  danger  that,  after  the  first  excitement 
produced  by  the  promulgation  of  Christianity  had 
passed  away,  it  would  be  regarded  by  many  Gen- 
tile converts  only  as  a  new  speculation  upon  topics 
which  had  long  engaged  the  attention  of  their  phi- 
losophers,—  a  system  of  opinions  having  its  origin 
in  a  nation  whom  they  regarded  as  barbarous  (in 
the  ancient  sense  of  the  word),  which  they  might 
adopt  in  part  only,  reject,  or  modify,  like  other 
speculations,  in  their  view  similar.  It  was  with  a 
feeling  of  this  danger,  that  St.  Paul  told  the  Co- 
rinthians that  he  was  sent  "  to  preach,  not  with 
wisdom  of  words,  lest  the  cross  of  Christ  should 
become  of  no  account";*  and  that  he  was  "de- 
termined to  know  nothing  among  them,  but  Jesus 
Christ,  and  him  crucified."!  In  the  two  Epistles 
we  are  considering,  he  teaches  those  addressed, 
that  it  was  through  Christ  alone  that  they  who 
were  formerly  Gentiles  had  attained  to  a  knowl- 
edge of  God,  and  of  the  truths  and  hopes  of  re- 
ligion. To  raise  and  strengthen  their  sense  of  the 
value  of  Christianity,  he  describes  its  blessings, 
especially  in  reference  to  themselves  who  had  been 
Gentiles,  in  the  strongest  terms ;  and,  to  fix  their 
attention  on  Christ  as  their  great  and  sole  Master, 
he  uses  language  equally  strong  in  speaking  of 
his  relation  to  God,  of  the  importance  and  dignity 
of  his  office,  and  of  the  dependence  of  all  his  fol- 
lowers upon  him. 

To  the  Colossians  he  says  (i.  9-20): — 

"  So  then  we  also,  since  we  first  heard  of  youi 

-  1  Cor.  i.  17.  *  1  Cor.ii.2. 


290       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

faith,  cease  not  to  pray  for  you,  and  to  ask  that 
you  may  be  made  perfect  in  the  knowledge  of 
God's  will,  having  all  spiritual  wisdom  and  un- 
derstanding ;  that  you  may  walk  worthily  of  the 
Lord  to  all  acceptance,  being  fruitful  in  eirery  good 
work,  and  increasing  in  the  knowledge  of  God ; 
being  endued  with  all  strength  through  his  glorious 
power,  so  as  to  bear  all  things  patiently  and  joy- 
fully ;  giving  thanks  to  the  Father,  who  has  quali- 
fied us  to  share  the  lot  of  the  holy  who  are  in  the 
light,  rescuing  us  from  the  empire  of  darkness,  and 
transferring  us  into  the  kingdom  of  his  beloved 
Son  ;  by  whom  we  are  delivered,  our  sins  being 
remitted ;  who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God, 
the  first-born  of  the  whole  creation  ;  for  by  him  all 
has  been  created,  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly,  the 
seen  and  the  unseen,  whether  thrones,  or  princi- 
palities, or  governments,  or  powers,  all  has  been 
created  through  him  and  for  him,  and  he  is  over 
all,  and  all  exists  by  him.  And  he  is  the  head  of 
the  body,  the  community  of  the  holy,*  he  being  the 
beginning,  the  first-born  from  the  dead,  that  he 
might  have  pre-eminence  in  all  things.  For  with 
him  it  pleased  God  that  whatever  is  perfect  should 
be  united,  and  through  him  to  reconcile  all  to 
himself,  —  making  peace  through  the  blood  of  his 
cross, — all  whether  in  heaven  or  on  earth  through 
him." 

In  this  passage  there  are  some  expressions  that 
require  explanation.      God,  says    St.   Paul,  *'  has 

*  Or  "  the  church  " :  I  use  the  term  given  above  as  more  compre- 
hensive and  expressive. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   291 

transferred  us  from  the  empire  of  darkness  into  the 
kingdom  of  his  beloved  Son."  To  this  metaphor 
much  of  the  following  language  corresponds.  It 
was  this  kingdom  which  had  been  newly  created, 
that  is,  had  been  newly  formed;  for  it  is  thus  that 
the  word  rendered  created  is  to  be  understood. 
We  find  it,  and  its  correlatives,  repeatedly  used  in 
a  similar  sense  by  St.  Paul,  namely,  to  denote  the 
moral  renovation  of  men  by  Christianity.  Thus 
he  says : — 

"  If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature. 
The  old  things  have  passed  away  ;  behold,  all  things 
have  become  new"  2  Cor.  v.  17. 

"  For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  is  circumcision 
anything,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature." 
Gal.  vi.  15. 

"  For  we  are  God's  workmanship,  created  through 
Christ  Jesus  for  good  works."  Ephes.  ii.  10. 

"  Put  on  the  new  man,  who  is  created  in  the 
likeness  of  God  with  the  righteousness  and  holi- 
ness of  the  true  faith."  Ephes.  iv.  24. 

The  language  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 
in  which  Christ  is  said  to  have  created  all  things, 
is  to  be  explained  in  a  corresponding  manner.  He 
created  all  things  in  the  new  dispensation,  in  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven.  It  has  been  understood  as 
declaring,  that  the  natural  creation  was  the  work  of 
Christ.  But  it  is  obvious,  at  first  sight,  that  the 
words  used  are  not  such  as  properly  designate  the 
objects  of  the  natural  world;  and  not  such,  there- 
fore, as  we  should  expect  to  be  employed,  if  these 
were  intended.  In  speaking  of  the  natural  crea- 

29  • 


292       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

tion,  the  same  Apostle  refers  it  to  God  in  different 
terms,  —  to  "  the  living  God  who  made  heaven 
and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  all  things  that  are  in 
them."  * 

But  what  is  meant  by  the  Apostle  when  he 
speaks  of  Christ  as  creating  things  heavenly,  and 
unseen,  thrones,  principalities,  governments,  and 
powers  ?  I  answer,  that  Christ  is  here  spoken  of 
by  him  as  the  founder  and  monarch  of  the  king- 
dom of  Heaven ;  and  that  this  kingdom  is  con- 
ceived of,  not  as  confined  to  earth,  but  as  extend- 
ing to  the  blessed  in  heaven,  to  those  who  have 
entered,  or  may  enter,  on  their  reward.  Christ 
being  represented  under  the  figure  of  a  king,  and 
his  followers  being  those  who  constituted  the  sub- 
jects of  his  kingdom,  their  highest  honors  and 
rewards  are  spoken  of,  in  figurative  language,  as 
thrones,  principalities,  governments,  and  powers. 
He  himself  said  to  his  Apostles  :  "  In  the  regenera- 
tion,"—  that  is,  "in  the  new  creation,"  for  the  terms 
are  equivalent,  —  "  In  the  regeneration,  when  the 
Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory, 
you  also  shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones,  judging  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  f  u  To  sit  on  my  right 
hand  and  on  my  left "  —  to  hold  the  highest  places 
in  my  kingdom,  to  attain  the  highest  rewards  con- 
ferred on  my  followers  —  "is  not  mine  to  grant, 
but  it  will  be  given  to  those  for  whom  it  has  been 
prepared  by  my  Father."  J  But  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  including  the  seen  as  well  as  the  unseen, 

*  Acts  xiv.  15.          t  Matthew  xix  28  t  Matthew  xx  23. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   293 

the  earthly  as  well  as  the  heavenly,  the  terms  in 
question  are  to  be  understood,  not  merely  as  re- 
ferring to  the  rewards  of  the  blessed  in  heaven,  but 
as  denoting  likewise  the  highest  offices  and  digni- 
ties of  this  kingdom  on  earth ;  the  offices  of  those 
who  were  ministers  of  Christ,  its  king,  —  his  apos- 
tles and  teachers.  The  purpose  of  St.  Paul  is  to 
declare,  that  Christ  is  the  former  and  master  of 
the  whole  church  on  earth  and  in  heaven,  of  the 
whole  community  of  the  holy ;  that  he  is  the  au- 
thor of  all  their  blessings  ;  that  all  authority  among 
them  is  from  him ;  that  all  are  ruled  by  his  laws ; 
that  the  whole  kingdom  on  earth  and  in  heaven 
exists  through  him,  and,  figuratively  speaking,  "for 
him,"  as  its  monarch. 

The  same  leading  ideas  are  somewhat  differently 
expressed  in  the  corresponding  passage  in  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Ephesians  (i.  15-23) :  — 

"  And  therefore  I,  hearing  of  your  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  of  your  love  toward  all  the  holy, 
do  not  cease  to  give  thanks  for  you,  praying  that 
the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of 
glory,  may  give  you  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  di- 
vine illumination,  that  you  may  become  acquainted 
with  him,  the  eyes  of  your  minds  being  enlightened, 
that  you  may  know  what  is  the  hope  to  which  he 
has  summoned  you,  and  how  rich  is  that  glorious 
inheritance  which  he  has  given  you  among  the 
holy,  and  how  exceedingly  great  is  his  power  ex- 
erted for  us  believers,  corresponding  to  the  opera- 
tion of  his  might  displayed  in  raising  Christ  from 
the  dead;  whom  he  hath  seated  at  his  own  right 


294       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

hand  in  heaven,  over  all  rule,  and  authority,  and 
power,  and  dominion,  and  every  title  of  honor  in 
this  age  or  in  that  to  come ;  putting  ill  things 
under  his  feet,  and  appointing  him  supreme  head 
of  the  community  of  the  holy,  which  is  his  body, 
the  perfectness  of  him  who  is  made  completely 
perfect  in  all  things." 

IN  the  passage  first  quoted  from  the  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians,  there  is  a  clause  (verse  19)  which 
I  have  rendered,  "  For  with  him  it  pleased  God, 
that  whatever  is  perfect  should  be  united."  The 
rendering  of  the  Common  Version  is,  "  For  it 
pleased  the  Father,  that  in  him  should  all  fulness 
dwell."  The  word  here  translated  "  fulness,  ir\^- 
pco/jia,  means  "perfectness,"  "perfection,"  "comple- 
tion," "fulness,"  or  "that  which  perfects,"  "com- 
pletes," "fills."  In  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians 
and  Colossians,  it  is  used  by  St.  Paul  in  a  peculiar 
manner ;  and  from  the  want  of  a  corresponding 
term  which  will  readily  suggest  his  meaning,  there 
is  in  some  instances  a  difficulty  in  expressing  it  in 
English.  The  rendering  of  the  passages  where  it 
occurs  must  be  varied  according  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case. 

The  leading  idea,  I  conceive,  which  St.  Paul 
intended  to  express  by  this  word  in  these  two 
Epistles,  is  the  Perfectness  of  Christianity,  whether 
considered  as  a  perfect  display  of  the  character  of 
God,  as  a  perfect  systeiri  of  religious  truth,  or  as 
making  its  disciples  perfect,  in  the  scriptural  sense 
of  that  word.  All  perfection,  in  his  view,  waa 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   2&O 

combined  in  it ;  and  his  meaning  in  the  clause 
just  referred  to  is,  that  it  pleased  the  Father  that 
this  whole  Perfectness,  with  all  those  who  were 
the  subjects  of  it  (irav  TO  TrXi/peo/xa),  should  abide 
with  Christ.  To  him,  as  their  sole  master  and 
teacher,  his  followers  were  to  look.  Nothing,  to 
complete  his  religion,  was  to  be  drawn  from  any 
other  sou"*"0.  Whatever  was  perfect  was  in  him, 
that  is,  in  his  religion;  to  him  every  "perfect" 
man  was  united. 

Thus  he  says  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 
(iii.  14-19)  :  — 

"  For  this,  I  bend  my  knees  to  the  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whose  name  is  borne  by  every 
family  [of  Christ's  disciples]  in  heaven  or  on  earth, 
that,  from  his  glorious  abundance,  he  may  grant 
you  to  be  powerfully  strengthened,  through  his 
spirit,  within  ;  that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your 
hearts  through  faith;  that  you  may  have  your 
root  and  foundation  in  love;  and  thus  that  you 
may  be  able  to  comprehend,  with  all  the  holy,  the 
breadth  and  the  length,  the  depth  and  the  height, 
of  his  goodness,*  and  to  know  that  Christian  lovef 

*  I  insert  the  words  "  of  his  goodness  "  to  make  what  I  conceive  to 
be  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle  clear  in  a  translation.  The  reference 
of  the  preceding  terms  descriptive  of  magnitude  is,  I  suppose,  to  rbv 
irXouroi'  TTJS  86£r)s  auroC,  verbally,  "  the  richness  of  his  glory,"  which 
I  have  rendered,  "  his  glorious  abundance."  These  words,  and  others 
equivalent,  —  as  6  irXovros  T^S  \apiTos  aurpC,  6  TrXoCros  rou  Xpi- 
trrot),  —  occur  often  in  these  Epistles  as  descriptive  of  the  goodness  of 
God  to  the  Gentiles.  With  the  passage  in  the  text  may  be  compared 
Romans  xi.  33,  *G  ftddos  TT\OVTOV  KOI  (rotyias  KOI  yv<a<T(w$  GeoC  / 

t  Tijv  dydnrjv  rou  Xpto-roO,  "  that  love  which  Christ  has  taught 
and  requires,"  of  which  the  Apostle  so  often  speaks  in  these  Epistles, 
that  love  which,  he  elsewhere  teaches,  is  better  than  knowledge. 


296       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

which  is  better  than  knowledge ;  so  that  your  per 
fection  may  correspond  to  the  whole  perfec     dis- 
pensation of  God,"  —  verbally,  that  "you  r  Ay  be 
perfected  to  the  whole  perfection  of  God,"  that  is, 
the  whole  perfection  which  has  God  for  its  author. 

In  another  passage  in  the  same  Epistle  (iv.  11- 
13)  he  says,  that  God  (to  whom,  and  not  to  Christ, 
the  preceding  verses  relate)  * 

"  —  gave  to  some  to  be  apostles,  to  some  to  be 
public  teachers,  to  some  to  be  evangelists,  to  some 
to  be  pastors  and  private  teachers,  that  they  might 
perfect  the  holy,  execute  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
form  the  body  of  Christ,  till  we  all  attain  the  same 
faith,  and  the  same  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God, 
becoming  full-grown  men,  reaching  the  full  stature 
of  Christian  perfection." 

The  words  of  the  last  clause,  verbally  rendered, 
would  be,  "  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  Per- 
fectness  [that  is,  of  the  perfect  dispensation]  of 
Christ." 

In  a  passage  already  quoted  (Ephesians  i.  23), 
the  community  of  the  holy  is  called  "  the  body  of 
Christ,  the  perfectness  of  him  who  is  made  com- 
pletely perfect  in  all  things."  The  word  -TrXT/poj/za, 
perfectness^  is  not  here  used  in  the  extent  of  its 
signification  as  I  have  explained  it.  It  is  limited 
to  the  subjects  of  the  perfect  diepensation  of  Christ. 
As  it  stands,  it  has  a  double  reference ;  one  figu- 
rative to  the  idea  of  the  perfectness,  produced  by 
uniting  a  body  to  its  head,  the  church  being  the 

*  [See  the  Christian  Examiner  for  January  1828,  Vol.  V.  pp. 
65-67.] 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       297 

body  and  Christ  the  head ;  the  other  literal,  the 
church  being  called  the  perfectness  of  Christ,  partly 
because  its  members  are  considered  as  perfect,  and 
partly  because  its  formation  was  the  perfecting  of 
the  great  design  of  him,  who,  as  a  minister  of  God 
and  teacher  of  the  truth,  was  "  made  completely 
perfect  in  all  things." 

We  will  now  turn  to  Colossians  ii.  1  - 10  :  — 
"  For  I  wish  you  to  know  what  earnest  care  I 
lave  for  you,  and  for  those  of  Laodicea,  and  for 
ill  who  have  not  known  me  in  person  ;  that  being 
mit  together  in  love,  their  minds  may  be  excited 
o  attain  to  all  the  riches  of  a  complete  understand- 
,ng,  to  a  full  acquaintance  with  the  new  doctrine 
•f  God,  in  which  are  stored  all  the  treasures  of 
vis^om  and  knowledge.  What  I  would  is  this, 
that  no  one  may  impose  upon  you  by  specious 
discudises.  For  I,  though  I  am  absent  in  body, 
am  p*c»sent  with  you  in  spirit,  rejoicing  at  the  sight 
of  your  well-ordered  state,  and  the  firmness  of  your 
faith  in  Christ.  As,  therefore,  you  have  received 
Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  so  continue  to  walk  in 
his  way,  rooted  in  him,  built  upon  him,  and  es- 
tablished in  the  faith  as  it  has  been  taught  you, 
abounding  in  thanksgiving.  Beware  lest  any  man 
make  a  prey  of  you  by  a  vain  and  deceitful  philos- 
ophy, conformed  to  the  doctrines  of  men,  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  world,  and  not  to  Christ ;  for  with 
him  abides,  as  his  body,  all  that  is  divinely  per- 
fect ;  and  you  are  made  perfect  through  him,  who 
is  the  head  of  all  rule  and  authority." 

By  the  words  rendered  "  all  that  is  divinely  per- 


298       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

feet,"  I  understand  the  whole  divine,  perfect  dis- 
pensation, with  all  who  had  become  the  subjects 
of  it.*  In  the  light  in  which  the  passage  has  been 
placed,  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  leading  ideas, 
and  the  language  in  which  they  are  expressed,  are 
both  essentially  the  same  with  what  we  find  in 
other  passages  of  these  two  Epistles,  which  we 
have  before  noticed.  These  thoughts  dwelt  upon 
the  mind  of  the  Apostle  while  writing,  and  he  re- 
iterates them  with  a  slight  change  of  form.  They 
consist  in  exhortations  to  unwavering  faith,  to  en- 
tire deference  to  the  instructions  of  Christ  alone, 
and  to  constant  progress  in  Christian  knowledge 
and  love  ;  exhortations  founded  upon  the  perfect- 
ness  of  the  religion  taught  by  Christ,  upon  his  di- 
vine authority,  and  upon  the  most  intimate  con- 
nection subsisting  between  him  and  all  his  true  fol- 
lowers, he  being  the  head,  as  it  were,  and  they  the 
body,  all  their  blessings  and  all  their  knowledge,  all 
that  was  perfect  in  them,  being  derived  from  him. 

THERE  are  two  other  passages  which,  perhaps, 
it  may  be  worth  while  to  notice  under  the  present 
head.  In  the  twelfth  chapter  of  John's  Gospel 
(verse  40),  the  Evangelist  applies  to  the  Jews  of 
his  time  words  derived  from  Isaiah  (vi.  10),  which 
he  thus  gives  :  "  He  has  blinded  their  eyes,  and 


*  In  the  original  words,  TO  TrX^poo/ia  rrjs  dforrjTos,  the  genitive  mav 
denote  the  relation  of  an  attribute  to  its  subject,  so  that  the  words 
may  be  equivalent  to  TO  df'iov  n\f}po)p.a  ;  or  the  relation  of  a  cause 
to  its  effect,  so  that  they  may  mean  "  the  perfection  which  has  divin- 
ity for  its  author."  The  ultimate  meaning  is  in  both  cases  the  same. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   299 

made  their  minds  callous,  so  that  they  see  not 
with  their  eyes,  nor  understand  with  their  minds, 
nor  turn  from  their  ways,  for  rne  to  heal  them." 
"  These  words,"  he  continues,  "  said  Isaiah,  when 
he  saw  his  glory,  and  spoke  concerning  him." 
The  primary  reference  of  the  passage  was  to  the 
indirect  effects  to  be  produced  by  the  preaching  of 
the  Prophet  himself  upon  the  Jews  of  his  time.* 
But  the  Evangelist  regarded  it  as  having  a  sec- 
ondary reference  to  Christ ;  and  supposed  Isaiah 
when  uttering  those  words  to  have  seen,  that  is,  to 
have  foreseen,  his  glory ;  the  verb  to  see  having 
here  the  same  force  as  when  used  concerning  Abra- 
ham :  "  Abraham  saw  my  day  and  rejoiced."! 

But  the  words  found  in  Isaiah  are  represented 
by  the  Prophet  as  having  been  addressed  to  him- 
self by  Jehovah,  when  he  beheld  a  vision  of  him  in 
the  temple ;  and  the  Trinitarian  contends,  that  the 
glory  seen  by  Isaiah,  to  which  St.  John  refers,  was 
this  glory  of  Jehovah,  and  consequently  that  Jeho- 
vah and  Christ  are  the  same.  Unquestionably 
this  interpretation  might  be  admitted,  if  it  involved 
no  absurdity  and  no  contradiction  to  what  is  else- 
where said  by  the  Evangelist.  But  if  it  do,  it  is 
equally  unquestionable  that  it  cannot  be  admitted. 

AN  argument  has  been  founded  by  Trinitarians 
upon  the  exclamation  of  the  Apostle  Thomas, 
when  convinced  of  the  truth  of  his  Master's  resur- 
rection :  "  And  Thomas  said  to  Jesus,  My  Master! 

*  [See  on  this  pafsage  Mr.  Norton's  Notes  on  the  Gospels.] 
t  [John  viii.  56.] 

30 


300   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

and  my  God ! "  *  Both  titles,  I  believe,  were  ap- 
plied by  him  to  Jesus.  But  the  name  "  God " 
was  employed  by  him,  not  as  the  proper  name 
of  the  Deity,  but  as  an  appellative,  according  to 
a  common  use  of  it  in  his  day ;  or  perhaps  in  a 
figurative  sense,  as  it  sometimes  occurs  in  modern 
writers,  of  which  the  passages  before  quoted  from 
Young  afford  examples.!  I  have  already  had  oc- 
casion to  remark  upon  the  different  significancy  of 
the  term  "  God  "  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times, 
a  difference  important  to  be  well  understood  in 
order  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  ancient  authors.^ 
The  name  "God"  is  an  appellative  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament^ and  it  is  a  characteristic  and  peculiar 

*  [John  xx.  28.]  t  See  p.  158. 

J  [Seep.  120,  note.] 

§  [The  Hebrew  words  commonly  translated  "  God "  in  the  Old 
Testament  are  Elohim  and  El.  The  former  is  applied  to  Moses, 
Exodus  vii.  1  (comp.  iv.  16)  ;  —  to  the  apparition  of  Samuel,  1  Sam. 
xxviii.  13  (comp.  verse  14);  —  to  Solomon,  or  some  other  king  of 
Israel,  Psalm  xlv.  6  ;  —  to  judges,  Exodus  xxi.  6  ;  xxii.  8,  9,  28  ;  — 
and  to  kings  or  magistrates,  Psalm  Ixxxii.  1 , 6,  and  perhaps  cxxxviii. 
1  (comp.  verse  4,  and  Psalm  cxix.  46).  See  also  Ezekiel  xxviii.  1. 
Many  have  supposed  the  word  Elohim  to  denote  angels  in  Genesis 
iii.  5  (comp.  verse  22),  Psalm  viii.  5,  and  some  other  passages,  as 
Psalm  xcvii.  7,  where  the  Septuagint  version  has  ayyeXoi.  This 
opinion  was  entertained  by  Milton,  who  accordingly,  in  his  Paradise 
Lost,  very  often  denominates  angels  "  gods.''  The  title  "  God  of 
gods"  is  repeatedly  given  to  Jehovah  in  the  Old  Testament:  see 
Deuteronomy  x.  17  ;  Joshua  xxii.  22  ;  Psalm  1.  1  (Heb.);  cxxxvi.  2; 
Daniel  xi.  36. 

El  is  the  Hebrew  word  which  is  translated  "  God"  in  Isaiah  ix.  6, 
where  it  is  supposed  by  most  Trinitarian  commentators  to  be  a  name 
of  Christ.  This  passage  has  already  been  noticed.  (See  p.  182.) 
The  same  word  is  applied  to  Nebuchadnezzar  in  Ezekiel  xxxi.  11, 
where  it  is  rendered  in  the  Common  Version  "  the  mighty  one  * ;  in 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT    301 

distinction  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
when  compared  with  those  who  preceded  and  fol- 
lowed them,  that  they  used  this  name  as  it  is  used 
by  enlightened  Christians  at  the  present  day. 

But  the  argument  deserves  notice  as  illustrating 

the  Septuagint,  apx&v,  "ruler."  In  Ezekiel  xxxii.  21,  where  it  is 
used  in  the  plural,  it  is  translated  "  the  strong."  In  Isaiah  ix.  6,  the 
Septuagint  version,  according  to  the  Alexandrine  manuscript,  and 
also  the  versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  render  the 
word  by  fo^vpos,  "strong." 

Our  Saviour  refers  to  this  use  of  the  word  "  God,"  in  a  lower  sense, 
in  the  Old  Testament.  "  Is  it  not  written  in  your  Law,  I  said,  Ye  are 
gods  ?  If  those  are  called  gods  to  whom  the  word  of  God  was  ad- 
dressed," &c.  See  John  x.  34-36,  and  compare  Psalm  Ixxxii.  1,  6. 

There  is  hut  one  passage  in  the  New  Testament,  besides  that  now 
under  consideration,  in  which  there  is  any  good  reason  for  supposing 
the  name  "  God  "  to  be  given  to  Christ.  This  is  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  i.  8,  9,  quoted  from  Psalm  xlv.  6,  7,  —  "Thy  throne,  O 
God,  is  for  ever  and  ever/'  &c.  But  here  the  context  proves  that  the 
word  "  God  "  does  not  denote  the  Supreme  Being,  but  is  used  in  an 
inferior  sense.  This  is  admitted  by  some  of  the  most  respectable 
Trinitarian  critics.  Thus  the  Rev.  Dr.  Mayer  remarks:  "Hero 
[i.  e.  in  Hebrews  i.  8]  the  Son  is  addressed  by  the  title  God ;  but  the 
context  shows  that  it  is  an  official  title,  which  designates  him  as  a 
king:  he  has  a  kingdom,  a  throne,  and  a  sceptre ;  and  in  ver.  9,  he  is 
compared  with  other  kings,  who  are  called  his  fellows  ;  but  God  can 
have  no  fellows.  As  the  Son,  therefore,  he  is  classed  with  the  kings 
of  the  earth,  and  his  superiority  over  them  consists  in  this,  that  he  is 
anointed  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  them ;  inasmuch  as  their 
thrones  are  temporary,  but  his  shall  be  everlasting."  (Article  on 
"  The  Sonship  of  Christ,"  in  the  Biblical  Repository  for  January 
1840,  p.  149.)  So  Professor  Stuart  says:  "As  to  the  quotation  of 
Psalm  xlv.  it  seems  to  me  a  clear  case,  that  it  does  not  fairly  estab- 
lish the  truly  divine  nature  of  him  to  whom  it  is  applied.  Elohim 
appears  to  be  here  applied  as  designating  an  official  capacity,  which 
is  high  above  that  of  all  other  kings."  (Biblical  Repository  for 
July  1835,  pp.  105,  106;  compare  his  Commentary  on  Hebrews, 
p.  294,  2d  ed.)  After  these  admissions,  it  is  hardly  worth  while 
to  mention  the  fact,  that  such  commentators  as  Calvin  and  Grotiui 


302      EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

the  very  loose  reasoning  which  has  been  resortec 
to  in  bringing  passages  from  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament  in  support  of  false  doctrines.  Suppos- 
ing that  Thomas  had  believed,  and  asserted,  that 
his  Master  was  God  himself ;  in  what  way  should 

regard  the  Psalm  in  question  as  relating,  in  its  primary  sense,  to 
Solomon. 

Such,  then,  being  the  use  of  the  word  "  God  "  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, Thomas  may  have  applied  it  to  Christ  as  it  is  applied  to  the 
subject  of  the  forty-fifth  Psalm,  where  it  denotes  "  a  divinely-anointed 
king,"  regarded  as  the  earthly  representative  of  God.  But,  without 
reference  to  this  use  of  the  word,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  conceiving 
that  Thomas,  under  the  circumstances  related  by  the  Evangelist,  may 
have  applied  the  term  "  God  "  to  Christ,  not  as  the  Infinite  and  Un- 
changeable Being,  but  as  one  invested  with  the  authority  of  God  and 
manifesting  his  perfections,  —  his  Image  and  Vicegerent  on  earth. 
He  had  listened  to  his  words  of  eternal  life;  he  had  beheld  the  mani- 
festations of  that  supernatural  power  which  stilled  the  tempest,  which 
gave  sight  to  the  blind,  which  raised  the  dead  ;  in  his  Master's  resur- 
rection he  now  recognized,  with  feelings  which  we  can  hardly  realize, 
the  immediate  interposition  of  the  Almighty ;  the  impression  which 
had  been  made  on  his  mind  and  heart  by  all  that  was  divine  in  Christ 
was  vivified  anew;  he  felt  the  truth  of  the  sublime  words  which  but 
a  few  days  before  he  had  heard  from  his  lips,  "  He  who  has  seen  me 
has  seen  the  Father " ;  and,  overwhelmed  with  wonder,  reverence, 
and  awe,  he  exclaims,  "  My  Master !  and  my  God  ! " 

But  is  it  not  marvellous  that  theologians  have  made  of  this  ex- 
clamation a  proof-text,  construing  language  of  the  strongest  emotion 
as  if  it  were  the  language  of  a  creed  ?  A  more  rational  view, 
hrwever,  has  been  taken  of  the  passage  by  such  commentators  as 
Miehaelis,  Rosenmuller,  Kuinoel,  and  Lucke,  —  and,  apparently, 
Neander  and  Tholuck,  —  who  recognize  the  invalidity  of  the  Trini- 
tarian argument  which  has  been  founded  upon  it.  Meyer,  in  the  first 
edition  of  his  Commentary  (1834),  remarked,  very  judiciously,  that 
expressions  uttered  "  in  such  ecstatic  moments  "  are  "  entirely  mis- 
used when  applied  to  the  proof  of  doctrinal  propositions."  But  in 
his  second  edition  (1852)  he  does  not  seem  quite  willing  to  give  up 
the  passage.  He  speaks  of  Thomas  as  expressing  "  his  faith  in  the 
divine  nature  [or  essence,  Wesen]  of  his  Lord  " ;  and,  though  he  ob 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW     TESTAMENT.      303 

this  affect  our  faith  ?  We  should  still  know  the 
fact  on  which  his  belief  was  founded,  the  fact  of 
the  resurrection  of  his  Master,  and  could  draw  our 
own  inferences  from  it,  and  judge  whether  his  were 
well  founded.  Considering  into  how  great  an  er- 

serves  that  the  strong  feeling  under  which  the  exclamation  was  ut- 
tered renders  it  less  fitted  for  doctrinal  use,  he  cites  as  important  the 
remark  of  Erasmus,  that  Christ  accepted  the  acknowledgment  of 
Thomas,  instead  of  rebuking  him,  as  he  would  have  done  if  he  had 
been  falsely  called  God.  The  obvious  reply  to  this  is,  that  Christ 
accepted  the  acknowledgment  of  Thomas  as  he  meant  it,  not  in  the 
irrational  sense  which  modern  theologians  have  put  upon  the  words. 
And  as  Greenwood  has  well  remarked :  — 

"The  answer  of  Jesus  himself  excludes  the  supposition  that  he  was 
addressed  as  the  Supreme  God.  For  he  said  unto  his  disciple, 
•Thomas,  because  thou  hast  seen  me,  thou  hast  believed  ;  blessed  are 
they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed.'  Now  this  must 
mean, '  Because  thou  hast  seen  me  here  alive,  after  my  crucifixion 
and  burial,  thou  hast  believed  that  I  am  raised  from  the  dead ;  and 
it  is  well ;  but  blessed  are  they  who  cannot  have  such  evidence  of  the 
senses,  and  yet  shall  believe  in  the  glorious  truth,  from  your  evidence, 
and  that  of  your  brethren.'  He  could  not  have  meant,  that  they  ^ere 
blessed  who,  though  they  had  not  seen  him,  yet  had  believed  that  he 
was  God ;  because  there  is  no  connection  between  the  propositions ; 
because  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  cannot,  to  the  mind  of 
any  one,  be  of  itself  a  proof  of  his  deity ;  and  because  no  one  thinks 
of  requiring  to  see  God,  in  order  to  believe  that  he  exists."  (Lives 
of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  2d  ed.,  p.  139.) 

Nothing  can  be  more  thoroughly  irreconcilable  with  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  Gospel  history,  than  the  supposition  that  the  disciples,  during 
their  intercourse  with  their  Master  on  earth,  regarded  him  as  the  Su- 
preme Being.  (See  before,  p.  75,  et  seqq.)  It  is,  accordingly,  ad- 
mitted by  many  Trinitarians,  that  the  mystery  of  the  hypostatic  union 
was  not  revealed  to  them  before  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  See  Wilson's  "  Unitarian  Principles  confirmed  by  Trini- 
tarian Testimonies,"  p.  351,  et  seqq. 

What  the  Apostle  John  understood  to  be  implied  in  this  confession 
of  Thomas,  may  be  inferred  from  the  words  with  which  he  concludes 
this  chapter.] 

30* 


304       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

ror  he  had  fallen  in  his  previous  obstinate  incredu- 
lity, there  would  be  little  reason  for  relying  upon 
his  opinion  as  infallible  in  the  case  supposed.  I 
make  these  remarks,  not  from  any  doubt  about  the 
meaning  of  his  words,  but,  as  I  have  said,  for  the 
purpose  of  pointing  out  one  example  of  that  in- 
complete and  unsatisfactory  mode  of  reasoning, 
which  appears  in  the  use  of  many  quotation? 
from  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament. 


CLASS    VII. 

THE  passages  to  which  we  have  had  occasion  to 
attend  are  of  a  character  to  excite  an  interest  in 
ascertaining  their  true  meaning,  without  reference 
to  the  general  subject  of  this  volume.  Their  e* 
pianation  rests  on  facts  and  principles  important 
to  be  known  and  attended  to  in  the  study  of  the 
New  Testament.  But  there  are  others  brought 
forward  by  Trinitarians  of  which  the  same  cannot 
be  said,  and  which  require  only  a  very  brief  and 
general  notice. 

I  have  endeavored  to  show,  that  whenever  a  Trin- 
itarian meaning  is  given  to  any  passage,  it  is  given 
in  violation  of  a  fundamental  rule  of  interpretation. 
But  there  are  passages  adduced,  in  the  senses  assigned 
to  which,  not  merely  this  rule  is  violated,  but  the  most 
obvious  and  indisputable  characteristics  of  language 
are  disregarded,  and  the  reasoning  proceeds  upon  the 
^sumption  that  they  do  not  exist.  Thus,  for  exam- 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   30* 

pie,  it  is  said  in  Isaiah  (xliii.  11),  according  to  the 
Common  Version :  "  I,  even  I,  am  the  LORD,  and 
beside  me  there  is  no  saviour."  But  Christ,  it  is 
argued,  is  our  Saviour ;  and,  as  it  is  proved  by 
this  passage  that  there  can  be  no  saviour  but 
God,  it  follows  that  Christ  is  God.  The  reason- 
ing proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  the  same 
word  is  always  used  in  the  same  sense,  with  the 
same  reference,  and  in  the  whole  extent  of  its 
signification  ;  and  the  monstrous  conclusions  that 
would  result  from  applying  this  argument  to  other 
individuals  beside  Christ,  to  whom  the  name  "  Sav- 
*our  "  is  or  may  be  given,  are  put  out  of  sight.* 

*  [See  2  Kings  xiii.  5 ;  Nehemiah  ix.  27  ;  Isaiah  xix.  20 ;  Oba- 
diah21. 

Some  Trinitarians  have  quoted  in  proof  of  the  deity  of  Christ  a 
few  passages  in  which  they  suppose  the  title  "  God  our  Saviour  "  to 
be  applied  to  him.  The  following  are  all  the  passages  of  the  New 
Testament  in  which  this  expression  occurs :  1  Timothy  i.  1  ;  ii.  3 ; 
Titus  i.  3  ;  ii.  10 ;  iii.  4  ;  and  Jude  25.  See  also  Luke  i.  47 ;  1  Tim- 
othy iv.  10. 

In  some  of  these  texts,  as  1  Timothy  i.  1,  Titus  iii.  4-6,  the  being 
who  is  called  "God  our  Saviour"  is  expressly  distinguished  from 
Christ ;  and  one  need  only  compare  the  others  with  these,  and  with 
their  context,  to  perceive  that  it  is  not  only  without  evidence,  but 
against  all  evidence,  that  any  of  them  are  referred  to  Christ.  A  large 
majority  of  Trinitarian  commentators  recognize  this  fact. 

In  Jude  25  the  best  ancieni  manuscripts  and  versions,  and  other 
authorities  for  settling  the  text,  read,  "  To  the  ONLY  God  our  Saviour, 
THROUGH  JESUS  CHRIST  OUR  LORD,  he  glory,"  &c.  This  reading 
is  adopted  by  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Schott,  Tittmann,  Vater,  Scholz, 
Lachmann,  Hahn,  Tischendoif,  Theile,  and  nearly  all  modern  critics. 
There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  of  its  genuineness. 

We  may  here  notice  also  2  Peter  i.  1  and  Titus  ii.  13,  in  which  it 
has  been  maintained,  on  the  ground  of  the  omission  of  the  Greek 
article,  that  Christ  is  called  "  our  God  and  Saviour,"  and  "  our  great 


306   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

On  misinterpretations  such  as  this  it  would  be 
useless  to  dwell.  No  information  can  be  given,  no 
thoughts  can  be  suggested,  which  are  not  obvious 
to  every  reader  who  will  exercise  his  own  under- 
standing ;  and  to  him  who  will  not,  all  assistance 
must  be  in  vain. 

THUS,  then,  with  one  exception,  which  we  will 
immediately  consider,  we  have  taken  a  general 
view  of  the  manner  in  which  the  passages  adduced 
by  Trinitarians  are  to  be  explained. 

God  and  Saviour."  As  to  the  argument  founded  on  the  omission  of 
the  article,  it  is  not  necessary  to  add  anything  to  what  has  already 
been  said.  (See  p.  199,  note.)  But  it  is  urged  by  Professor  Stuart 
and  others,  in  respect  to  Titus  ii.  13,  that  the  "appearing"  of  God 
the  Father  is  never  foretold  in  the  New  Testament,  and  therefore 
that  "the  great  God  "here  spoken  of  must  be  Christ.  The  answer 
to  this  is,  that,  according  to  the  literal  and  correct  translation  of  the 
original,  it  is  not  "the  appearing"  but  "the  appearing  of  the  glory, 
cirxj)dv€iav  rrjs  $6t-r)s,  of  the  great  God  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,"  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks;  and  that  our  Saviour  did  ex- 
pressly declare  that  he  should  come  "  in  the  glory  of  his  Father." 
See  Matthew  xvi.  27  ;  Mark  viii.  38 ;  Luke  ix.  26 ;  and  compare 
1  Timothy  vi.  14-16.  Professor  Stuart  admits  that  "the  whole 

argument, so  far  as  the  article  is  concerned,  falls  to  the  ground." 

(Biblical  Repository  for  April  1834,  p.  323.)  The  title  "the  great 
God"  in  this  passage  is  referred  to  the  Father  by  Erasmus,  Grotius, 
Le  Clerc,  Wetstein,  Doddridge,  Macknight,  Abp.  Newcome,  Rosen- 
inOller,  Heinrichs,  Schott,  Winer,  Neander  (Planting  and  Training, 
I.  509,  note,  Bohn's  ed.),  De  Wette,  Meyer  (on  Romans  hi  5), 
Huthsr,  Conybeare  and  Howson,  and  others.] 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    TF  ',    Nt  W    Tl  STANT^T.       30 

CLASS     VITI. 
The  Introduction  of  £'.  *  ohrt    Gosk  >el. 


WE  will  now  attend  to  a  passage  fiat  hr 
misunderstood  through  ignorance  o  disregard  o: 
the  opinions  and  modes  of  conception  T\  hich  th« 
writer,  St.  John,  had  in  mind.  This  is  the  intro 
duction,  or  proem,  as  it  has  bren  called,  of  h? 
Gospel. 

"  In  the  beginning  was  the  Logos,  and  the  Lc 
gos  was  with  God,  and  the  Logos  was  God." 

There  is  no  word  in  English  answering  to  tht 
Greek  word  Logos,  as  here  used.  It  was  employed 
to  denote  a  mode  of  conception  concerning  thr 
Deity,  familiar  at  the  time  when  St.  John  wrote 
and  intimately  blended  with  the  philosophy  of  hi 
age,  but  long  since  obsolete,  and  so  foreign  frorr 
our  habits  of  thinking,  that  it  is  not  easy  for  ui 
to  conform  our  minds  to  its  apprehension.  Th» 
Greek  word  Logos,  in  one  of  its  primary  senses 
answered  nearly  to  our  word  Reason.  It  denoted 
that  faculty  by  which  the  mind  disposes  its  ideal 
in  their  proper  relations  to  each  other  ;  the  Dispos- 
ing Power,  if  I  may  so  speak,  of  the  mind.  In 
reference  to  this  primary  sense,  it  was  applied  to 
the  Deity,  but  in  a  wider  significance.  The  Logos 
of  God  was  regarded,  not  in  its  strictest  sense,  as 
merely  the  Reason  of  God  ;  but,  under  certain 
aspects,  as  the  Wisdom,  the  Mind,  the  Intellect 
of  God.  To  this  the  creation  of  all  things  was 


S08       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

especially  ascribed.  The  conception  may  seem  ob- 
vious in  itself;  but  the  cause  why  the  creation 
was  primarily  referred  to  the  Logos  or  Intellect  of 
God,  rather  than  to  his  goodness  or  omnipotence, 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Platonic  philosophy,  as  it  ex- 
isted about  the  time  of  Christ,  and  particularly  as 
taught  by  the  eminent  Jewish  philosopher,  Philo 
of  Alexandria. 

According  to  this  philosophy,  there  existed  an 
archetypal  world  of  IDEAS,  formed  by  God,  the  per- 
fect model  of  the  sensible  universe  ;  corresponding, 
so  far  as  what  is  divine  may  be  compared  with 
what  is  human,  to  the  plan  of  a  building  or  city 
which  an  architect  forms  in  his  own  mind  before 
commencing  its  erection.  The  faculty  by  which 
God  disposed  and  arranged  the  world  of  Ideas 
was  his  Logos,  Reason,  or  Intellect.  This  world, 
according  to  one  representation,  was  supposed 
to  have  its  seat  in  the  Logos  or  Mind  of  God; 
according  to  another,  it  was  identified  with  the 
Logos.  The  Platonic  philosophy  further  taught, 
that  the  Ideas  of  God  were  not  merely  the  arche- 
types, but,  in  scholastic  language,  the  essential 
forms,  of  all  created  things.*  In  this  philosophy 
matter  in  its  primary  state,  primitive  matter,  if 
may  so  speak,  was  regarded  merely  as  the  sub- 
stratum of  attributes,  being  in  itself  devoid  of  all, 
Attributes,  it  was  conceived,  were  impressed  upon 
it  by  the  Ideas  of  God,  which  Philo  often  speaks 

*  [For  an  account  of  Plato's  doctrine  of  Ideas,  see  the  author's 
Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  Vol.  Ill  Additional 
Note  A.  J 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   309 

of  under  the  figure  of  seals.  These  Ideas,  indeed, 
constituted  tho^e  attributes,  becoming  connected 
with  primitive  matter  in  an  incomprehensible  man- 
ner, and  thus  giving  form  and  being  to  all  things 
sensible.  But  the  seat  of  these  Ideas,  these  for- 
mative principles,  being  the  Logos  or  Intellect  of 
God,  —  or,  according  to  the  other  representation 
mentioned,  these  Ideas  constituting  the  Logos,  — 
the  Logos  was,  in  consequence,  represented  as  the 
great  agent  in  creation.  This  doctrine  being  set- 
tled, the  meaning  of  the  term  gradually  extended 
itself  by  a  natural  process,  and  came  at  last  to 
comprehend  all  the  attributes  of  God  manifested  in 
the  creation  and  government  of  the  universe.  These 
attributes,  abstractly  from  God  himself,  were  made 
an  object  of  thought  under  the  name  of  the  Logos. 
The  Logos  thus  conceived  of  was  necessarily  per 
sonified  or  spoken  of  figuratively  as  a  person.  In 
our  own  language,  in  describing  its  agency,— 
agency  in  its  nature  personal  and  to  be  ultimately 
referred  to  God,  —  we  might  indeed  avoid  attach- 
ing a  personal  character  to  the  Logos  considered 
abstractly  from  God,  by  the  use  of  the  neuter  pro- 
noun it.  Thus  we  might  say,  All  things  were 
made  by  it.  But  the  Greek  language  afforded 
no  such  resource,  the  relative  pronoun  in  concord 
with  Logos  being  necessarily  masculine.  Thus 
the  Logos  or  Intellect  of  God  came  to  be,  figu- 
ratively or  literally,  conceived  of  as  an  interme- 
diate being  between  God  and  his  creatures,  the 
great  agent  in  the  creation  and  government  of 
the  universe. 


310       EXPLANATION       OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Obsolete  as  this  mode  of  conception  has  now 
become,  there  is  a  foundation  for  it  in  the  nature 
of  the  being  contemplated,  and  of  the  human 
mind.  The  Deity  conceived  of  as  existing  within 
himself,  removed  from  all  distinct  apprehension  of 
created  intelligences,  dwelling  alone  in  his  unap- 
proachable and  unimaginable  infinity  of  perfec- 
tions, presents  a  different  object  to  the  mind  from 
the  Deity  operating  around  us  and  within  us,  and 
manifesting  himself,  as  it  were,  even  to  our  senses. 
It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  these  two  concep- 
tions of  him  have  been  regarded  apart,  and  more 
or  less  separated  from  each  other.  The  notion  of 
the  Logos,  it  is  true,  is  obsolete ;  but  we  find 
something  analogous  to  it  in  the  use  of  the  term 
Nature  in  modern  times.  Employed  as  this  often 
is,  the  mind  seems  to  rest  in  some  indistinct  notion 
of  an  agency  inferior  to  the  Supreme,  or  an  agency, 
to  say  the  least,  which  is  not  referred  directly  to 
God. 

The  conception  and  the  name  of  the  Logos 
were  familiar  at  the  time  when  St.  John  wrote. 
They  occur  in  the  Apocryphal  book  of  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon.  The  writer,  speaking  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  first-born  of  the  Egyptians,  says  (ch. 
xviii.  15) :  — 

"  Thine  almighty  Logos  leaped  down  from  heav- 
en, from  his  royal  throne,  a  fierce  warrior,  into  the 
midst  of  a  land  of  destruction." 

In  another  passage,  likewise,  in  the  prayer 
ascribed  to  Solomon,  he  is  represented  as  thus 
addressing  God  (ch.  ix.  1,  2) :  — 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   311 

"  God  of  our  fathers,  and  Lord  of  mercy, 
Who  hast  made  all  things  by  thy  Logos, 
And  fashioned  man  by  thy  Wisdom." 

The  terms,  the  Logos  of  God,  and  the  Wisdom  of 
God,  are  here  used  as  nearly  equivalent  in  signifi- 
cation. A  certain  distinction  was  sometimes  made 
between  them ;  but  they  were  often  considered  as 
the  same.  In  the  book  just  quoted  we  find  strong 
personifications  of  Wisdom,*  considered  as  an  at- 
tribute of  God,  and  described  in  such  language 
as  was  afterwards  applied  to  the  Logos.  In  the 
Proverbs  there  are  similar  personifications  of  Wis- 
dom,! which  the  Christian  Fathers  commonly  un- 
derstood of  the  Logos. 

The  use  of  the  word  "  Logos,''  in  the  sense  that 
has  been  assigned  to  it,  was  derived  from  the  Pla- 
tonic philosophy.  But  we  find  among  the  Jews  a 
similar  mode  of  conceiving  and  speaking  of  the 
operations  of  God,  unconnected  with  this  philoso- 
phy, and  appearing  in  the  use  of  a  different  term, 
the  Spirit  of  God,  or  the  Holy  Spirit.  By  either 
expression,  in  its  primary  theological  sense,  was 
intended  those  attributes,  or  that  power  of  God, 
which  operated  among  men  to  produce  effects  that 
were  believed  to  be  conformable  to  his  will,  as 
manifested  in  the  laws  of  his  moral  government. 
Thus  the  miracles  of  a  teacher  from  God,  the 
direct  influences  of  God  upon  the  minds  of  men, 
and  all  causes  tending  to  advance  men  in  excel- 
lence,  moral  and  intellectual,  were  referred  to  the 

•  Ch.  vii.,  viii.,  x. 

t  Ch.  viii.    See  also  ch.  i.  20,  seqq. ;  cb,  iii.  19. 
31 


312       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Holy  Spirit.  The  idea  of  its  invisible  operation 
was  associated  with  it.  To  express  what  has  been 
said  in  different  terms,  it  denoted  the  unseen  Power 
of  God,  acting  upon  the  minds  of  men  in  the  direct 
or  indirect  production  of  moral  goodness,  or  intel- 
lectual ability,  in  the  communication  of  truth,  and 
in  the  conferring  of  supernatural  powers.  The  con- 
ception is  of  the  same  class  with  that  of  the  Logos ; 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  in  some  instances  strongly 
personified,  as  by  our  Saviour  in  his  last  discourse 
with  his  Apostles.  The  divine  Power  which  was 
manifested  in  Christ  might  be  ascribed  indifferently 
to  the  Spirit,  or  to  the  Logos,  of  God,  as  the  reader 
or  hearer  was  more  conversant  with  the  one  term 
or  the  other.  St.  John,  writing  in  Asia  Minor, 
where  many  for  whom  he  intended  his  Gospel 
were  familiar  with  the  conception  of  the  Logos, 
has,  probably  for  this  reason,  adopted  the  term 
"  Logos,"  in  the  proem  of  his  Gospel,  to  express 
that  manifestation  of  God  by  Christ  which  is  else- 
where referred  to  the  Spirit  of  God.* 

*  It  may  be  observed,  that,  amid  the  confusion  and  inconsistency 
of  those  conceptions  of  the  earlier  Fathers  which  afterwards  settled 
into  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  we  often  find  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
the  Logos  spoken  of  as  the  same  power  of  God.  Thus  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, in  reference  to  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ,  says  (Apolo- 
gia Prima,  c.  33.  p.  54) :  "  We  must  not  understand  by  the  Spirit 
and  the  power  from  God  anything  different  from  the  Logos,  who  is 
the  First-born  of  God."  Theophilus  of  Antioch  says  (Ad  Autolycum, 
Lib.  II.  $  10),  that  "the  Logos  is  the  Spirit  of  God  and  his  Wisdom"; 
though  he  elsewhere  (Ibid.  §  15  et  §  18)  makes  a  Trinity  of  God,  his 
Logos,  and  his  Wisdom.  The  Wisdom  of  God  was  commonly  con 
ceived  of  as  the  Logos  of  God,  but  Irenaeus,  like  Theophilus,  gives 
the  former  name  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  (See  Lib.  IV.  c.  20.)  TCP- 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   313 

But  to  return.  The  conception  that  has  been 
described  having  been  formed  of  the  Logos,  and 
the  Logos  being,  as  I  have  said,  necessarily  per- 
sonified, or  spoken  of  figuratively  as  a  person,  it 
soon  followed,  as  a  natural  consequence,  that  the 
Logos  was  by  many  hypostatized  or  conceived  of 
as  a  proper  person.*  When  the  corrective  of  ex- 
perience and  actual  knowledge  cannot  be  applied, 
what  is  strongly  imagined  is  very  likely  to  be  re- 
garded as  having  a  real  existence ;  and  the  philos 
ophy  of  the  ancients  was  composed  in  great  part 
of  such  imaginations.  The  Logos,  it  is  to  be  rec- 
ollected, was  that  power  by  which  God  disposed 
in  order  the  Ideas  of  the  archetypal  world.  But 
in  particular  reference  to  the  creation  of  the  ma- 
terial universe,  the  Logos  came  in  time  to  be  con- 
ceived of  by  many  as  hypostatized,  as  a  proper 
person  going  forth,  as  it  were,  from  God  in  order 
to  execute  the  plan  prepared,  to  dispose  and  ar 
range  all  things  conformably  to  it,  and  to  give 

tnllian  says  (Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  26) :  "  The  Spirit  of  God  [the 
Spirit  spoken  of  in  the  account  of  the  miraculous  conception]  is  the 
same  as  the  Logos.  For  as,  when  John  says,  The  Logos  was  made 
flesh,  we  by  the  Logos  understand  the  Spirit,  so  here  we  perceive  the 
Logos  to  be  intended  under  the  name  of  the  Spirit.  For  as  the  Spirit 
is  the  substance  of  the  Logos,  so  the  Logos  is  the  operation  of  the 
Spirit ;  and  the  two  are  one  thing.  What !  when  John  said  that 
the  Logos  was  made  flesh,  and  the  angel,  that  the  Spirit  was  to  be 
made  flesh,  did  they  mean  anything  different?"  See  also  c.  14; 
Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  V.  c.  8,  et  alibi  sa;pe ;  Irenaeus,  Cont.  Haeres. 
Lib.  V.  c.  1.  $  2. 

*  It  will  be  convenient  in  what  follows  to  use  the  terms  personify 
and  hypostatixe,  with  their  correlatives,  as  distinguished  from  each 
other  according  to  the  senses  assigned  them  in  the  text 


314       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

sensible  forms  to  primitive  matter,  by  impressing  it 
with  the  Ideas  of  the  archetypal  world.  In  many 
cases  in  which  the  term  "  Logos  "  occurs,  if  we 
understand  by  it  the  Disposing  Power  of  God  in 
a  sense  conformable  to  the  notions  explained,  we 
may  have  a  clearer  idea  of  its  meaning,  than  if  we 
render  it  by  the  term  "  Reason,",  or  "  Wisdom,"  or 
any  other  which  our  language  offers. 

In  the  writings  of  Philo,  who  was  contemporary 
with  our  Saviour,  we  find  the  Logos  clearly  and 
frequently  hypostatized.  According  to  him,  con- 
sidered as  a  person,  the  Logos  is  a  god.  In  a 
passage  which  has  been  closely  imitated  by  Ori- 
gen,  he  says  :  "  Let  us  inquire  if  there  are  really 
two  Gods."  He  answers :  "  The  true  God  is  one, 
but  there  are  many  who,  in  a  less  strict  use  of  lan- 
guage, are  called  gods."  The  true  God,  he  says, 
is  denoted  by  that  name  with  the  article ;  others 
have  it  without  the  article  ;  and  thus  his  most  ven- 
erable Logos  is  called  God  without  the  article.* 
"  No  one,"  he  says,  "  can  comprehend  the  nature  of 
God ;  it  is  well  if  we  can  comprehend  his  name, 
that  is,  the  Logos,  his  interpreter ;  for  he  may  be 
considered,  perhaps,  as  the  god  of  us  imperfect 
beings,  but  the  Most  High  as  the  God  of  the 
wise  and  perfect."  f  He  represents  the  Logos  as 

*  De  Somniis,  Lib.  I.  c.  39.  Opp.  I.  655.  Comp.  Origen's  Com- 
ment, in  Joan.  Tom.  II.  Opp.  IV.  50,  51.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  re- 
marking on  Genesis  iv.  25,  says,  Ov  yap  Ofov  dn\S)s  Trpoa-clirev  6  ry 

rov  apdpov  7rpoTd£fi  Tov  iravTOKpctTopa.  dr)\di)<ras Stromat  IH 

t  12.  p.  548.  [See  before,  p.  120,  note.] 

t  Legg  Allegorr.  Lib.  III.  c.  73.    Opp.  I.  128. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       31/3 

the  instrument  (opyavov)  of  God  in  the  creation 
of  the  universe;  as  the  image  of  God,  by  whom 
the  universe  was  fashioned ;  as  used  by  him,  like 
a  helm,  in  directing  the  course  of  all  things;  as 
he  who  himself  sits  at  the  helm  and  orders  all 
things;  and  as  his  first-born  son,  his  vicegerent 
in  the  government  of  the  world.*  "  Those,"  says 
Philo,  "  who  have  true  knowledge  [knowledge  of 

God]    are   rightly  called   sons  of  God Let 

him,  then,  who  is  not  yet  worthy  to  be  called  a 
son  of  God,  strive  to  fashion  himself  to  the  re- 
semblance of  God's  first-born  Logos,  the  most 
ancient  angel,  being,  as  it  were,  an  archangel  with 
many  titles."  f  A  little  after,  he  calls  the  Logos 
u  the  eternal  image  of  God " ;  and  elsewhere 
applies  to  him  the  epithet  "  eternal."  He  repre- 
sents the  Logos  as  a  mediator  between  God  and 
his  creatures.  "  To  the  archangel,  the  most  an- 
cient Logos,  God  freely  granted  the  high  dis- 
tinction of  standing  between  and  separating  the 
creation  from  its  Creator.  With  the  immortal 
being,  he  intercedes  for  what  is  mortal  and  perish- 
ing. He  announces  the  will  of  the  Ruler  to  his 
subjects.  Being  neither  unoriginated  like  God, 
nor  originated  like  man,  but  standing  between 
the  two  extremes,  he  is  a  hostage  to  both ;  being 
a  pledge  to  the  Creator  that  the  whole  race  of 


*  De  Cherubim,  c.  35.  I.  162.  De  Monarchift,  Lib.  II.  c.  5.  Opp. 
It.  225.  De  Migrat.  Abrahami,  c.  1.  I.  437.  De  Cherubim,  c.  11. 
I.  145.  De  Agriculture,  c.  12.  I.  308. 

t  De  Confusione  Linguarum,  c.  28.  I.  426,  427.  [See  before^ 
pp.  220,  221.] 

31  • 


316       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

men  shall  never  fall  away  and  revolt,  preferring 
disorder  to  order;  and  giving  assurance  to  the 
creature  that  the  God  of  Mercy  will  never  neglect 
what  he  has  made."  * 

Such  conceptions  are  expressed  by  Philo  con- 
cerning the  Logos  as  a  person.  If  his  represen- 
tations of  him,  so  far  as  they  have  been  quoted, 
are  not  perfectly  consistent,  they  do  not  imply  that 
he  wavered  much  in  the  view  of  his  character; 
and  these  representations  were  received  by  the 
early  Fathers  as  the  groundwork  of  their  doctrine 
concerning  the  personal  Logos.  But  upon  further 
examination,  the  opinions  of  Philo  will  appear 
more  unsettled  and  unsteady ;  and  new  concep- 
tions will  present  themselves.  To  these  we  shall 
advert  hereafter.  It  is  only  necessary  here  to  ob- 
serve, that  in  his  opinions  relating  to  this  subject 
there  was  little  fixedness  or  consistency.  The 
images  which  floated  before  his  mind  changed 
their  forms.  Throughout  his  writings,  he  often 
speaks  of  the  personal  agency  of  the  Deity  in  lan- 
guage as  simple  as  that  of  the  Old  Testament. 
In  a  large  portion  of  the  passages  in  which  he 
makes  mention  of  the  Logos,  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  he  conceived  of  it,  for  the  time,  otherwise 
than  as  an  attribute  or  attributes  of  God.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  also  to  be  observed,  that  the  influ- 
ence of  his  Platonism,  when  it  was  ascendant  in  his 
mind,  did  not  terminate  in  hypostatizing  the  Logos 
alone  among  the  powers  or  attributes  of  God. 

*  Quis  Rerum  Divinarum  Hares,  c.  42.    I.  501,  502. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       317 

FROM  the  explanations  which  have  been  given 
of  the  conceptions  concerning  the  Logos  of  God, 
it  will  appear  that  this  term  properly  denoted  an 
attribute  or  attributes  of  God ;  and  that  upon  the 
notion  of  an  attribute  or  attributes  the  idea  of  per- 
sonality was  superinduced.  Let  us  now  consider 
the  probable  meaning  of  the  first  words  of  St. 
John's  Gospel. 

"  In  the  beginning  was  the  Logos,  and  the  Lo- 
gos was  with  God,  and  the  Logos  was  God." 

These  words  admit,  I  think,  only  of  two  ex- 
planations. Either  St.  John  used  the  word  "  Lo- 
gos" simply  to  denote  the  conception  of  those 
attributes  of  God  which  are  manifested  in  the 
creation  and  government  of  the  universe ;  and  in 
the  last  clause  intended  to  declare,  that,  in  the 
contemplation  of  them,  no  other  being  but  God  i? 
to  be  contemplated,  and  that  all  their  operations 
are  to  be  referred  directly  to  him ;  —  or  he  meant 
to  speak  of  those  attributes  as  hypostatized,  and 
to  represent  the  Logos  of  God  as  a  proper  person 
(such  as  he  is  described  by  Philo),  the  minister 
and  vicegerent  of  God,  who,  always  acting  by  the 
power,  and  conformably  to  the  will,  of  God,  might 
rhetorically  be  called  God,  according  to  the  figure 
by  which  we  transfer  to  an  agent  the  name  of  his 
principal. 

It  is  contended,  indeed,  that  his  words  admit  of 
a  different  meaning;  that  the  Logos  is  here  spoken 
of  as  a  proper  person ;  but  that  this  person  is,  at 
the  same  time,  declared  to  be,  literally,  God.  But 
if  we  so  understand  St.  John,  his  words  will  express 


318       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

a  contradiction  in  terms.  "  The  Logos,"  he  says, 
"was  WITH  God,"  which,  if  the  Logos  be  a  per- 
son, necessarily  implies  that  he  is  a  different  person 
from  God.  Whoever  is  WITH  any  being  must  be 
diverse  from  that  being  with  whom  he  is.  As  far, 
then,  as  we  may  be  assured  that  St.  John  did  not 
affirm  an  absurdity  in  terms,  so  far  we  may  be 
assured  that  he  did  not  affirm  that  the  Logos, 
bebig  a  person  with  God,  was  also,  literally,  God. 
Of  the  Evangelist  we  may  here  say,  as  Tertullian 
says  concerning  another  passage  quoted  from  him  : 
"  Secundum  omnia  [in  suo  evangelio]  potius  quam 
adversus  omnia,  etiam  adversus  suos  sensus  inter- 
pretandus  "  ;  — "  He  is  to  be  explained  conforma- 
bly to  all,  rather  than  in  opposition  to  all  that  he 
has  elsewhere  written,  and  in  opposition,  too,  to 
the  sense  of  the  words  themselves."*  Here,  there- 
fore, we  dismiss  the  Trinitarian  exposition,  and 
proceed  to  consider  how  the  passage  is  to  be  un- 
derstood. 

We  have  now  only  to  choose  between  the  two 
explanations  first  given.  St.  John  has  personified, 
or  he  has  hypostatized  the  Logos.  He  has  spoken 
of  the  Logos  simply  as  of  the  attributes,  or,  as  we 
may  say,  the  Power  of  God,  manifested  in  his 
works ;  or  he  has  adopted  the  philosophy  of  some 
of  his  contemporaries,-  and  intended  to  represent 
this  Power  as  a  person. 

Whether  St.  John  did  or  did  not  adopt  this  Pla- 
tonic conception,  is  a  question  not  important  to  be 
settled  in  order  to  determine  our  own  judgment 

*  [Tertulli&n.  advers.  Praxeam,  c.  26.] 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.      319 

concerning  its  truth.  But  that  he  did  not,  is  ren- 
dered probable  by  his  not  alluding  to  it  elsewhere 
in  his  Gospel,  and  by  his  never  in  any  other  place 
introducing  an  intermediate  agent  between  God 
and  his  creation,  or  referring  the  Divine  Power 
manifested  in  Christ  to  any  other  being  but  God 
himself.  It  is  unlikely  that  he  would  receive  a 
doctrine  of  this  kind,  which  had  not  been  taught 
by  his  Master ;  and  neither  he  nor  any  other  of  the 
Evangelists  has  recorded  that  this  doctrine  was 
taught  by  Christ.  The  nature  of  the  doctrine 
itself,  which  presents  the  strange  conception  of  an 
hypostatized  attribute  or  attributes,  would  alone 
forbid  the  supposition  of  its  having  such  an  origin. 
It  is  clearly  traced  to  a  different  source,  to  a  phi- 
losophy which,  considering  St.  John's  intellectual 
habits  and  his  manner  of  life,  was  not  likely  to 
have  a  strong  influence  over  his  mind. 

But,  setting  aside  these  considerations,  the  pas- 
sage itself  affords,  perhaps,  sufficient  reason  for 
believing  that  the  Evangelist  did  not  intend  to 
speak  of  an  hypostatized  Logos.  "  The  Logos," 
he  says,  "was  God,"  that  is,  the  Supreme  Being. 
If  we  conceive  of  the  Logos  as  a  person,  the  agent 
of  God,  those  words  considered  in  themselves  ad- 
mit, as  I  have  said,  of  a  figurative  sense.  But 
they  would  express  an  assertion  which  is  made  by 
no  other  writer  who  entertained  this  conception  of 
the  Logos.  Philo,  or  the  earlier  Christian  Fathers, 
would,  equally,  have  shrunk  from  asserting  the 
Logos  to  be  God,  as  the  word  "  God  "  is.  used  by 
us.  The  earlier  Fathers  understood  the  terra 


320       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

"god,"  as  here  used  by  St.  John,  in  an  inferior 
sense,  regarding  it  as  denoting  what  we  might 
express  in  English  by  saying,  that  the  Logos  was 
a  "  divine  being."  But  this,  unquestionably,  is 
not  its  true  sense.  St.  John,  having  just  used  the 
word  @eo?,  "  God,"  to  denote  the  Supreme  Being, 
would  not  in  the  next  clause  thus  vary  its  signifi- 
cation ;  and  corresponding  likewise  to  what  I  have 
before  observed,*  his  general  use  of  this  term,  like 
that  of  the  other  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  was 
the  same  with  our  own  use  of  the  name  "  God." 
Assuming,  then,  that  the  word  0eo'?,  "  God,"  in  the 
passage  before  us,  denotes  the  Deity,  what  purpose 
or  inducement  could  St.  John  have  had  to  assert, 
in  a  figurative  sense,  that  the  Logos  was  the  Deity, 
upon  the  supposition  that  he  believed  the  Logos 
to  be  a  distinct  person,  the  agent  of  the  Deity? 
I  think  none  can  be  conjectured. 

Thus  far,  I  have  been  arguing  merely  against 
the  supposition,  that  St.  John  adopted  the  Platonic 
conception  of  an  hypostatized  Logos.  But  as  to 
the  further  supposition,  that  he  believed  his  Mas- 
ter, Jesus  Christ,  to  have  been  not  a  man,  properly 
speaking,  but  that  Logos  clothed  in  flesh,  it  is  here 
sufficient,  after  all  that  has  been  said,  to  remark  its 
inconsistency  with  the  whole  character  of  his  narra- 
tive and  those  of  the  other  Evangelists,  and  with 
every  other  part  of  the  New  Testament.  Had  St. 
John  believed  his  Master  to  be  an  incarnation  of  a 
great  being,  to  whom  the  name  Logos  might  be 
applied,  superior  to  all  other  beings  except  God 

*  See  before,  pp.  300,  301. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       321 

we  could,  with  our  present  view  of  the  character  of 
the  Apostle,  assign  no  other  ground  for  this  belief 
than  an  assurance  of  the  fact,  resting  upon  mirac- 
ulous evidence.  Had  he,  then,  held  this  belief, 
he  would  everywhere  have  spoken  of  his  Master 
conformably  to  it.  Christ  would  have  appeared 
throughout  his  Gospel  and  the  other  Gospels,  not 
as  a  man,  which  he  was  not,  but  as  the  incarnate 
Logos,  which  he  was.  No  reason  can  be  assigned 
why  he  should  not  have  been  usually  denominated 
by  that  name,  his  real  character  kept  constantly  in 
view,  and  all  his  words,  actions,  and  sufferings  cor- 
rectly represented  as  those  of  the  agent  interme- 
diate between  God  and  his  universe. 

Let  us  now  examine  whether  the  language  of 
the  Apostle  can  be  better  explained,  if  we  under- 
stand him  as  using  the  term  "Logos"  merely  to 
denote  the  attributes  of  God  manifested  in  his 
works.  It  was  his  purpose,  in  the  introduction  of 
his  Gospel,  to  declare  that  Christianity  had  the 
same  divine  origin  as  the  universe  itself;  that  it 
was  to  be  considered  as  proceeding  from  the  same 
power  of  God.  Writing  in  Asia  Minor,  for  readers 
by  many  of  whom  the  term  "  Logos  "  was  more 
familiarly  used  than  any  other  to  express  the  attri- 
butes of  God  viewed  in  relation  to  his  creatures, 
he  adopted  this  term  to  convey  his  meaning,  be- 
cause, from  their  associations  with  it,  it  was  fitted 
particularly  to  impress  and  affect  their  minds ; 
(bus  connecting  the  great  truth  which  he  taught 
with  their  former  modes  of  thinking  and  speaking. 
But  upon  the  idea  primarily  expressed  by  this 


332       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

term,  a  new  conception,  the  conception  of  the 
proper  personality  of  those  attributes,  had  been 
superinduced.  This  doctrine,  then,  the  doctrine  of 
an  nypostatized  Logos,  it  appears  to  have  been  his 
purpose  to  set  aside.  He  would  guard  himself,  I 
think,  against  being  understood  to  countenance  it. 
The  Logos,  he  teaches,  was  not  the  agent  of  God, 
but  God  himself.  Using  the  term  merely  to  de- 
note the  attributes  of  God  as  manifested  in  his 
works,  he  teaches  that  the  operations  of  the  Logos 
are  the  operations  of  God;  that  all  conceived  of 
under  that  name  is  to  be  referred  immediately  to 
God ;  that  in  speaking  of  the  Logos  we  speak  of 
God,  "  that  the  Logos  is  God." 

The  Platonic  conception  of  a  personal  Logos, 
distinct  from  God,  was  the  embryo  form  of  the 
Christian  Trinity.  If,  therefore,  the  view  just 
given  of  the  purpose  of  St.  John  be  correct,  it  is 
a  remarkable  fact,  that  his  language  has  been  al- 
leged as  a  main  support  of  that  very  doctrine,  the 
rudiments  of  which  it  was  intended  to  oppose. 

Considering  how  prevalent  was  the  conception 
of  the  Logos  as  a  distinct  being  from  God,  it  is 
difficult  to  suppose  that  St.  John  did  not  have  it 
in  mind.  But  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  pre- 
ceding explanation  of  his  words  is  independent  of 
this  supposition,  and  that  they  are  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  same  manner,  whether  they  are  sup- 
posed to  refer  to  that  conception  or  not. 

It  is,  then,  of  the  attributes  of  God  as  displayed 
in  the  creation  and  government  of  the  world,  that 
St.  John  speaks  under  the  name  of  "  the  Logos." 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  323 

To  this  name  we  have  none  equivalent  in  English, 
for  we  have  not  the  conception  which  it  was  in- 
tended to  express.  In  rendering  the  first  eighteen 
verses  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  I  shall  adopt  the  term 
**  Power  of  God."  It  is,  perhaps,  as  nearly  equiva- 
lent as  any  that  we  ban  conveniently  use.  But  in 
order  to  enter  into  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  we 
must  associate  with  this  term,  not  the  meaning 
alone  which  the  English  words  might  suggest  ac- 
cording to  their  common  use,  but  the  whole  notion 
of  the  Logos  as  present  to  the  mind  of  the  Apostle. 
Adopting  this  term,  we  may  sa)  that  the  Power 
of  God,  personified,  is  the  subject  of  the  introduc- 
tory verses  of  his  Gospel.  It  is  first  said  to  be 
God,  and  afterwards  declared  to  have  become  a 
man.  It  is  first  regarded  in  its  relation  to  God  in 
whom  it  resides,  and  afterwards  in  its  relation  to 
Jesus  through  whom  it  was  manifested.  Viewed 
in  the  former  relation,  what  may  be  said  of  the 
Power  of  God  is  true  of  God ;  the  terms  become 
identical  in  their  purport.  Viewed  in  the  latter  re- 
lation, whatever  is  true  of  the  Power  of  God  ifj 
true  of  Christ,  considered  as  the  minister  of  God. 
His  words  were  the  words  of  God,  his  miracles 
were  performed  by  the  power  of  God.  In  the  use 
of  such  figurative  language,  the  leading  term  sel- 
dom preserves  throughout  the  same  determinate 
significance ;  its  meaning  varies,  assuming  a  new 
aspect  according  to  the  relations  in  which  it  is  pre- 
sented. Thus,  an  attribute  may  be  spoken  of  as 
personified,  then  simply  as  an  attribute,  and  then, 
again,  as  identified  with  the  subject  in  which  it 


324       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

resides,  or  the  agent  through  whom  it  is  manifested 
In  regard  to  the  personification  of  the  Logos  by  St 
John,  which  is  a  principal  source  of  embarrassment 
to  a  modern  reader,  it  was,  as  I  have  said,  insep- 
arable from  the  terms  in  which  the  conception  was 
expressed,  the  actions  ascribed  to  the  Logos  being 
of  a  personal  character,  and  the  use  of  the  neuter 
pronoun  being  precluded  by  the  syntax  of  the 
Greek  language.  St.  John,  then,  says  :  — 

"  In  the  beginning  was  the  Power  of  God,  and 
the  Power  of  God  was  with  God,  and  the  Power 
of  God  was  God.  He  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God.  All  things  were  made  by  him,  and  without 
him  nothing  was  made  which  was  made.  In  him 
was  the  source  of  blessedness;*  and  the  source  of 
blessedness  was  the  light  for  man.  And  the  light 
is  shining  in  darkness ;  though  the  darkness  was 
not  penetrated  by  it. 

"  There  was  a  man  sent  from  God,  whose  name 
was  John.  This  man  came  as  a  witness,  to  bear 
testimony  concerning  the  light,  that  all  might  be- 
lieve through  him.  He  was  not  the  light,  but  he 
came  to  bear  testimony  concerning  the  light.  The 

*  Zo>q,  rendered  in  the  Common  Version  life.  It  is  here,  however, 
used  in  the  sense  of  blessedness,  as  often  in  the  New  Testament.  But 
the  blessedness  spoken  of  is  that  which  is  communicated,  not  that  which 
is  enjoyed,  by  the  Logos.  I  do  not  perceive,  therefore,  that  the  sense 
of  the  original  can  be  expressed  more  concisely  in  English  than  by 
the  words  which  I  have  used.  This  blessedness  is  communicated 
through  the  revelation  of  religious  truth  ;  the  intellectual  light;  — not 
"  of  men,"  but  "  for  men."  In  other  words,  the  revelation  made  by 
the  Power  "of  God  through  Christ,  which  is  the  light  of  the  moral 
irorld,  is  the  source  of  blessedness  to  men. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   325 

true  light,*  which  shines  on  every  man,  was  com- 
ing into  the  world.  He  was  in  the  world,  and  by 
him  the  world  was  made,  and  the  world  acknowl- 
edged him  not.  He  came  to  his  peculiar  posses- 
sion, and  his  peculiar  people  received  him  not. 
But  to  as  many  as  received  him  he  gave  a  title  to 
be  children  of  God, — to  those  who  had  faith  in 
him,  —  they  being  born  not  of  any  peculiar  race,f 
nor  through  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  through  the 
will  of  man,  but  being  children  of  God. 

"  And  the  Power  of  God  became  a  man,J  and 
dwelt  among  us,  full  of  favor  and  truth  ;  and  we 
beheld  his  glory,  such  as  an  only  son  receives  from 
a  father.  John  bore  testimony  concerning  him, 
and  proclaimed,  This  is  he  of  whom  I  said,  He 
who  was  to  come  after  me  has  gone  before  me,  for 
he  was  my  superior.  —  Of  his  inexhaustible  store 
we  all  have  received,  even  favor  upon  favor.  For 

*  "  The  true  light,"  that  is,  the  Power  of  God,  the  Logos;  go  called 
because  he  is  the  source  of  the  light,  the  revealer  of  religious  truth. 

t  OVK  f£  aiparav,  literally,  not  of  (particular)  races,  af/ita  being 
here  used  in  the  sense  of  race,  as  in  Acts  xvii.  26,  and  by  profane 
writers.  Blood  in  English  is  used  in  a  similar  sense ;  as  in  the  ex- 
pression, "  They  were  of  the  same  blood."  The  meaning  of  the  whole 
thirteenth  verse  is,  that  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel  were  not  confined 
to  any  particular  race,  as  that  of  the  Jews ;  and  that  none  received 
them  on  the  ground  of  natural  descent,  as  children  of  Abraham  and 
the  other  patriarchs. 

J  2ap£  eye'r/ero,  rendered  in  the  Common  Version,  "became  flesh." 
The  word  crap|,  in  its  primitive  meaning  flesh,  is  often  used  to  de- 
note man.  When  it  is  said  that  the  Logos,  or  the  Power  of  God,  be- 
came a  man,  the  meaning  is  that  the  Power  of  God  was  manifested 
in  and  exercised  through  a  man.  It  is  afterward,  by  a  figurative  use 
of  language,  identified  with  Christ,  in  whom  it  is  conceived  of  aa  re- 
tiding. 


326       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

the  Law  was  given  by  Moses,  the  Favor  and  the 
Truth*  came  by  Jesus  Christ.  No  man  has  evei 
seen  God ;  the  only  Son,  who  is  on  the  bosom  of 
the  Father,  he  has  made  him  known." 

In  a  note  on  this  passage,  I  have  explained  the 
words,  "  the  Logos  became  flesh,"  or  "  the  Power 
of  God  became  a  man,"  as  meaning  that  "the 
power  of  God  was  manifested  in  a  man,"  that  "  it 
was  exercised  through  him,"  "it  resided  in  him." 
To  one  familiar  with  the  uses  of  figurative  lan- 
guage, the  interpretation  may  appear  obvious. 
Some  Trinitarians,  however,  may  object  to  it  as 
forced.  I  would,  therefore,  ask  him  who  believes 
that  by  the  Logos  is  meant  the  second  person  of 
the  Trinity,  to  consider  the  exposition  which  he 
himself  puts  upon  the  words.  According  to  this, 
the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  the  Son,  who  is 
himself  God,  became  a  man,  or,  to  adopt  the  ren- 
dering of  the  Common  Version,  was  made  flesh. 
God  became  a  man,  or  was  made  flesh.  By  the 
word  rendered  became  or  was  made,  the  Trinitarian 
understands  to  be  meant,  that  he  was  hypostaticaUy 
united  to  a  man,  was  so  united  to  a  man  as  to  con- 
stitute with  him  but  one.  person.  It  is  a  sense  of  the 
Greek  word  eyevero  not  to  be  found  elsewhere ;  to 
say  nothing  of  the  meaning  of  the  whole  sentence, 
if  it  may  be  called  a  meaning,  which  results  from 
giving  eyevero  this  unauthorized  signification.  The 
Antitrinitarian,  on  the  other  hand,  understands  the 

*  "  The  Favor  and  the  Truth,"  fj  x^P^  Ka'  9  a\r)6fia.  These  terms 
are  here  used  to  denote  the  Christian  dispensation,  the  religion  of 
mercy  and  truth. 


fiXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       327 

vvoru  as  equivalent  to  "  became,"  in  that  figurative 
sense  in  which  we  say  that  one  thing  is,  or  be- 
comes, another,  when  it  manifests  its  properties 
in  that  other  thing  so  spoken  of.  He  perceives 
as  little  difficulty  in  the  language,  as  in  that  with 
which  Thomson  commences  his  Hymn  on  the 
Seasons: — 

"  These,  as  they  change,  Almighty  Father,  these 
Are  but  the  varied  God." 

As  the  Seasons  are  figuratively  called  God,  be- 
cause God  in  them  displays  his  attributes,  so  the 
Logos  is  figuratively  called  a  man,  because  in 
Christ  were  manifested  the  same  Divine  Power, 
Wisdom,  and  Goodness  by  which  the  universe 
was  created. 

It  is  by  no  means  uncommon  to  find  in  the 
same  passage  an  attribute  or  a  quality,  now 
viewed  in  the  abstract  and  personified,  and  then 
presented  to  the  imagination  as  embodied  in  an 
individual  or  individuals.  Thus  Thomson,  on  the 
same  page  in  the  volume  before  me  from  which  1 
made  the  last  quotation,  says :  — 

"  Heaven-born  Truth 
Wore  the  red  marks  of  Superstition's  scourge." 

It  is  Truth  considered  in  the  abstract,  which  is 
described  as  heaven-born,  or  revealed  from  heaven ; 
it  is  those  who  held  the  truth  who  were  scourged 
by  Superstition.  Other  similar  examples  might 
be  adduced.  I  will  give  one  expressly  conformed 
in  its  general  character  to  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, in  which  no  person  accustomed  to  the 


328       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

use  of  figurative  language  will   suppose  that  its 
proper  limits  are  transgressed. 

Goodness  is  seated  on  the  throne  of  God,  and 
directs  his  omnipotence.  It  is  the  blessedness  of  all 
holy  and  happy  beings  to  contemplate  her,  the  Sur 
preme  Beauty,  and  become  more  and  more  conformed 
to  her  image.  It  is  by  her  that  the  universe  is  at~ 
tuned,  and  filled  with  harmony.  She  descended  from 
heaven,  and  in  the  person  of  Christ  displayed  her 
loveliness;  and  catted  men  to  obey  her  laws,  and 
enter  her  kingdom  of  light  and  joy.  But  she  ad- 
dressed those  whom  their  vices  and  bigotry  had  made 
blind  and  deaf.  She  was  rejected,  despised,  hated, 
persecuted,  crucified. 

It  may  appear  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the 
figure  by  which  St.  John  speaks  of  the  Logos  as 
becoming  a  man,  or,  in  other  words,  of  Christ  as 
being  the  Logos,  belongs  to  a  class  in  common 
use.  But  it  might  have  been  sufficient  at  once  to 
observe,  that  analogous  modes  of  expression  are 
used  even  by  Philo,  though  he  regarded  the  Logos 
as  a  proper  person.  Considering  the  Logos  as  the 
agent  of  God  in  the  creation  and  government  of 
all,  the  being  through  whom  God  is  manifested, 
Philo  applies  that  name  to  other  beings,  the  agents 
of  God's  will.  In  this  use  of  the  term,  it  may 
seem  that,  the  Logos  being  viewed  as  the  pri- 
mal, universal  manifestation  of  God,  all  particular 
manifestations  are  referred  to  it  by  Philo,  as  parts 
to  a  whole  ;  —  or  the  one  Logos  is  supposed  to  act 
in  every  particular  Logos,  using  all  as  its  minis- 
ters. However  this  may  be,  he  familiarly  c^lls  the 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       329 

angels  "Logoi"*  (in  the  plural),  and  applies  the 
term  also  to  men.  Thus  he  speaks  of  Moses  as 
k-the  lawgiving  Logos,"  as  "the  divine  Logos," 
and,  when  he  interceded  for  the  Israelites,  as  "the 
supplicating  Logos  of  God."f  Aaron  is  called 
"  the  sacred  Logos."  $  The  same  title  is  given  to 
Phinehas,  upon  occasion  of  his  staying  the  plague 
in  the  Jewish  camp.§  And  the  high-priest  is  re- 
peatedly called  "  Logos."  ||  Such  language  being 
common,  the  contemporaries  of  St.  John  would 
readily  understand  him,  when  he  spoke  of  the 
Logos  becoming  a  man,  or  of  Christ  as  being  the 
Logos.  When,  afterwards,  the  Christian  Fathers, 
regarding  the  Logos  as  hypostatized,  supposed  it 
to  have  become  incarnate  in  Christ,  they,  of  course, 
put  a  new  sense  upon  the  words  of  the  Apostle. 

I  MAY  here  take  notice  of  a  supposed  analogy, 
which  I  believe  does  not  exist,  between  the  intro- 
ductory verses  of  St.  John's  Gospel  and  those  with 
which  he  commences  his  First  Epistle.  In  the 
latter,  by  the  expression  rendered  in  the  Common 
Version  "word  of  life"  (Xo'yo?  rrjs  £0)779),  he  in- 
tends, I  think,  merely  the  Christian  doctrine,  "  the 
life-giving  doctrine  " ;  and  has  no  reference  to  the 
philosophical  notion  of  the  Logos  of  God.  This 

*  De  Posteritate  Caini,  c.  26.  I.  242.  De  Confusione  Linguaram, 
e.  8.  I.  409,  et  alibi  saepe.  [See  Christian  Examiner  for  May  1836, 
Vol.  XX.  p.  229.] 

t  De  Migrat.  Abraham i,  cc.  5,  15,  21.    I.  440,  449,  455. 

J  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  I.  c.  24.    Opp.  I.  59. 

$  Quis  Rerum  divinarum  Hares,  c.  42.    I.  501. 

1  De  Gigantibns,  c.  11.  I.  269.    De  Migrat  Abrahami,  c.  18.   1. 451 


330       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

expression,  and  others  similar,  are  used  elsewhere 
in  the  New  Testament  in  the  same  sense.*  The 
commencement  of  the  Epistle  may  be  thus  ren- 
dered :  — 

"  What  took  place  from  the  beginning,!  what 
we  have  heard,  what  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes, 
what  we  have  beheld,  and  our  hands  have  handled, 
concerning  the  life-giving  doctrine ;  —  for  Life  has 
been  revealed,  and  we  saw  and  bear  testimony, 
and  announce  to  you  that  Eternal  Life  which  was 
with  the  Father,  and  has  been  revealed  to  us;  — 
what  we  have  seen  and  heard,  we  announce  to 
you,  so  that  you  may  share  with  us,  whose  lot  is 
with  the  Father  and  with  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ." 

Notwithstanding  the  coincidence  of  some  words, 
used  in  different  senses,  it  is  obvious  that  the  pur- 
pose of  St.  John  in  the  passage  just  quoted  was 
wholly  different  from  that  which  appears  in  the 
introduction  of  his  Gospel.  In  the  latter  he  in- 
tended to  affirm  that  the  Christian  revelation  was 
to  be  referred  to  the  same  Divine  Wisdom,  Good- 
ness, and  Power  by  which  the  world  was  created 
and  is  governed.  In  the  first  verses  of  his  Epistle 

*  See  Philippians  ii.  16;  Acts  v.  20;  John  vi.  63,  68;  Romans 
riii.  2,  etc. 

t  That  is,  "from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  dispensation." 
The  terms,  an  apx*5ff»  or  e'£  "PX^*  from  the  beginning,  commonly 
occur  in  St.  John's  writings  in  reference  to  the  beginning  of  a  period 
determined  only  by  the  connection  in  which  the  words  occur.  Thus 
in  the  second  chapter  of  this  Epistle,  verse  7,  he  says  :  "  Beloved,  I 
write  you  no  new  commandment,  but  an  old  commandment,  which 
you  have  had  from  the  beginning  [rather,  from  the  first]."  See  also 
Epistle,  ii.  24 ;  iii.  11 ;  Gospel,  vi.  64 ;  xv.  27  ;  xvi.  4,  etc. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   331 

he  merely  affirms  that  what  he  had  taught  con- 
cerning this  revelation  rested  upon  his  own  per- 
sonal knowledge,  upon  the  testimony  of  his  senses.* 

WE  will  here  conclude  our  examination  of  pas- 
sages adduced  by  Trinitarians.  I  have  remarked 
upon  those  which  will  generally  be  considered  as 
most  important,  and  it  would  be  useless  to  pro- 
ceed further.  As  to  any  of  which  I  have  omitted 
to  take  notice,  it  will  be  easy  to  apply  to  them  the 
principles  and  facts  which  have  been  stated  and 
illustrated. 

IN  treating  of  the  Proem  of  St.  John's  Gospel, 
we  have  had  occasion  partially  to  consider  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Platonic  Logos,  the  germ  of  the  Chris- 
tian Trinity.  In  the  next  section  I  shall  proceed 
to  give  some  further  account  of  it,  and  of  the  con- 
ceptions connected  with  it;  my  purpose  being  to 
bring  into  view  some  particulars,  not  generally 
attended  to,  concerning  the  origin,  relations,  and 
character  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  it  existed 
during  the  first  four  centuries. 

*  There  is  a  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (iv.  12, 13),  and 
another  in  the  Apocalypse  (xix.  13),  in  which  the  conception  of  the 
Logos  as  an  attribute  or  attributes  of  God  appears  to  be  introduced, 
as  in  the  introduction  of  St.  John's  Gospel.  But  it  would  not  be  to 
oar  present  purpose  to  remark  upon  them  further. 


SECTION  X. 

ILLUSTRATIONS   OF   THE   DOCTRINE   OP   THE  LOGOS. 

IT  is  in  the  writings  of  Philo  that  we  find  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  first  developed  ;  and  his  con- 
ceptions concerning  this,  as  well  as  other  subjects 
connected  with  theology,  deserve  to  be  attentively 
studied: 

Philo,  it  will  be  recollected,  was  of  Alexandria, 
a  contemporary  of  Christ,  a  Jewish  Platonist.  No 
individual,  since  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  with  the 
exception,  perhaps,  of  Augustine,  has  exercised  so 
considerable  and  lasting  influence  upon  the  opin- 
ions of  the  whole  Christian  world,  as  this  learned 
and  eloquent  Jew.  His  influence  operated  through 
the  early  Christian  Fathers,  particularly  those  of 
Alexandria.  To  the  distinction  which  he  has  thus 
attained,  he  had  no  claim  from  the  clearness  or 
consistency  of  his  speculations,  or  any  power  of 
argument.  In  his  mind,  imagination  had  seized 
upon  the  whole  domain  of  speculative  reason.  Aa 
an  interpreter,  he  melted  down  the  literal  meaning 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  recast  it  in  fanciful 
allegories.  In  following  him  in  his  expositions, 
which  constitute  far  the  greater  part  of  his  works, 
the  reader  is  bewildered  by  a  constant  succession 


OP  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.      J33 

of  metamorphoses.  His  unsubstantial  conceptions 
on  other  subjects  retain  no  permanent  form.  But 
he  sometimes  pours  forth  noble  thoughts  in  a 
stream  of  overflowing  eloquence.*  His  morality 
is,  for  the  most  part,  correct;  and,  considering  his 
age  and  the  circumstances  under  which  he  wrote, 
wonderfully  pure  and  elevated.  He  seems  to  have 
been  deeply  penetrated  by  sentiments  of  true  re- 
ligion, and  thus  separated,  like  the  early  Christians, 
from  the  world  around  him.  Though  verging  to- 
ward asceticism  in  his  morality,  and  mysticism  in 
his  religious  feelings,  he  stopped  short  of  the  ex- 
travagances of  both.  His  general  conceptions  of 
the  Divinity  are  those  of  an  enlightened  Christian ; 
and  his  imaginations  concerning  the  powers  and 
operations  of  God,  if  untenable,  are  but  seldom 
offensive  even  to  a  modern  reader.  His  visionary 
speculations  concerning  him  seem  to  have  been 
rebuked  by  the  severe  genius  of  the  Jewish  re- 
ligion, and  to  float  on  the  confines  which  separate 
poetry  and  rhetoric  from  philosophy.  For  the 
most  part,  he  speaks  of  God,  not  only  as  the  first 
cause,  but  as  the  immediate  agent  in  the  produc- 
tion of  beings  and  events,  without  superadding 
anything  in  this  respect  to  the  representations  of 
the  Old  Testament.  There  are  many  passages  in 
which  he  introduces  the  Logos,  and  other  powers 
or  attributes  of  God,  as  instrumental  agents  of  the 
Deity,  that  might  be  explained  as  the  language  of 

*  [See,  for  example,  a  striking  passage  from  Philo  (De  Opificio 
Mumli,  c.  23.  I.  15,  16),  translated  and  illustrated  by  Mr.  Norton  in 
the  Christian  Examiner  for  September  1827,  Vol.  IV.  p.  377.J 


334      OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

bold  personification,  such  as  is  applied  to  Wisdom 
in  the  Proverbs  and  the  Apocrypha.  But  his  im- 
aginations occasionally,  or  permanently,  passed 
into  opinions ;  and  there  are  passages  in  his  writ*, 
ings  which  prove  that  he  sometimes,  if  not  always, 
conceived  of  the  Logos  and  of  other  attributes  of 
God  as  proper  persons.  Of  those  relating  to  the 
Logos  I  have  already  given  examples. 

From  Philo  the  Catholic  Fathers  borrowed  their 
doctrine  of  the  Logos,  and  the  Gnostics,  I  may 
add,  much  of  the  material  of  their  systems  of 
./Eons.*  The  Fathers  copied  his  conceptions,  his 


*  As  I  shall  in  this  section  occasionally  refer  to  the  Gnostics,  I  will 
here  give  such  a  brief  account  of  them  as  may  be  necessary  to  illus- 
trate those  references.  The  term  "  Gnostics  "  is  a  general  name  ap- 
plied to  various  sects  of  Christians  having  much  in  common,  who 
early  distinguished  themselves  from  the  great  body  of  believers. 
They  existed  principally  during  the  first  three  centuries.  Their 
most  distinctive  opinion  was  the  belief  that  the  material  world  was 
created  by  an  imperfect  being,  far  inferior  to  God,  —  the  Demiurgua 
or  Creator ;  from  whom  also  they  supposed  the  Jewish  dispensation 
to  have  proceeded.  Christ  was  in  their  view  the  messenger  of  the 
Supreme  God  to  deliver  men  from  the  reign  of  the  Creator. 

But  those  opinions  to  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  con 
cerned  the  development  of  beings  from  the  Supreme  God.  Respect 
ing  this  subject,  different  sects  had  different  schemes.  Concerning 
all,  our  information  is  imperfect ;  but  that  of  the  Valentinians,  as  re- 
formed by  Ptolemy,  or  the  Ptolemaeo-Valentinian  theory,  as  it  may 
be  called,  is  the  best  known,  was  the  most  prevalent,  and  may  serve 
as  a  specimen  of  their  general  character.  According  to  this  theory, 
God  was  conceived  of  as  having  dwelt  from  eternity  with  Silence,  or 
Thought,  or  Benevolence,  (for  these  different  names  are  used,)  who 
appears  dimly  shadowed  forth  as  the  hypostatized  spouse  of  God. 
Silence  becoming  pregnant  through  his  power,  the  first  and  greatest 
emanation  from  God,  Intellect  (Nous),  was  produced,  with  Truth  for 
his  spouse,  and  from  Intellect  and  Truth  were  then  emitted  Reason 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THI  LOGOS.      335 

distinctions,  his  language,  and  his  illustrations. 
Our  interest  is  consequently  excited  to  learn  all 
that  may  be  known  of  his  opinions  concerning 
this  subject.  The  inquiry  will  show  us  how  im- 
perfect and  changeable  was  his  notion  of  an 
hypostatized  Logos,  and  will  at  the  same  time 
open  to  us  a  prospect  of  speculations  respect- 
ing the  Divine  Nature,  the  most  foreign  from 
our  modes  of  thinking,  but  which  have  very  ex- 
tensively prevailed. 

In  the  last  section,  I  have  given  that  view  of 
Philo's  opinions  concerning  an  hypostatized  Logos 

(the  Logos),  with  his  spouse,  Life ;  and  Man,  with  his  spouse,  the 
Church. 

The  Gnostics  affected  the  reputation  of  superior  wisdom  and  dis- 
cernment; and  in  this  arrangement  of  emanations,  we  may  perceive, 
I  think,  what  they  regarded  as  a  more  full  development  of  ideas 
which,  in  their  view,  were  ignorantly  confounded  together  by  other 
Christians.  By  these,  generally,  no  distinction  was  made  between 
Intellect  and  Reason,  the  Nous  and  the  Logos  ;  the  Gnostics,  on  tho 
contrary,  separated  them  from  each  other,  and  regarded  the  latter  as 
comprehended  in,  and  emanating  from,  the  former.  We  find  some- 
thing analogous  to  their  conception  in  Origen  (Comment,  in  Joan- 
nem.  Opp.  IV.  20,  21,  22,  36,  47),  who  represents  the  Logos  of  God 
as  comprehended  in  his  Wisdom,  and  referring  to  Proverbs  viii.  22 
(according  to  the  Septuagint),  The  Lord  created  me,  the  Beginning,  un- 
derstands St.  John  as  meaning,  that  the  Logos  was  in  Wisdom, 
when  he  says,  The  Logos  was  in  the  Beginning.  So  also,  I  conceive,  it 
was  another  refinement  of  the  Gnostics  to  separate  the  emanation 
Man  from  the  emanation  Logos.  The  Logos  was  by  Philo  regarded 
as  that  image  of  God  after  which  man  was  created,  the  archetypal 
man,  the  primal  man.  But  the  Gnostics  chose  to  separate  these  two 
characters,  and  made  a  distinct  emanation  of  the  Primal  Man. 

In  order  fully  to  explain  what  has  been  said,  it  is  necessary  to  re- 
mark, that  the  female  emanations  are  merely  hypostatized  attributes 
or  energies  of  the  male,  and  that  the  line  of  derivation  from  the 
33 


336       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

which  is  most  commonly  presented.  But  there  is 
much  more  to  be  known.  We  will  first  consider 
how  he  speaks  of  the  Logos  in  relation  to  the 
Wisdom  of  God. 

With  the  Wisdom  of  God,  the  Logos  is  ex- 
pressly identified  by  Philo.*  He  ascribes  the  same 
titles,  character,  and  offices  to  both.f  u  God,"  he 
says,  "  separated  Wisdom  from  his  other  powers 
as  the  head  and  chief."  J  He  speaks  of  the  uni- 
verse as  formed  by  Divine  Wisdom. § 

But  though  he  thus  identifies  the  Wisdom  with 
the  Logos  or  Reason  of  God,  yet  he  elsewhere 

Deity  is  thus  to  be  regarded :  first  Intellect,  then  the  Logos,  then  the 
Primal  Man. 

After  those  which  have  been  mentioned,  follows  in  the  system  a 
series  of  emanations,  all,  I  conceive,  hypostatized  attributes  or  Ideas^ 
of  which  it  is  here  unnecessary  to  give  a  further  account.  All  thes 
emanations  and  the  Deity  himself  were  denominated  ^Eons,  tha 
is,  "  Immortals."  They  constituted  the  Pleroma  of  the  Gnostics, 
by  which  seems  to  have  been  meant  "  the  Perfect  Manifestation  of 
the  Deity."  The  word  was  likewise  used  to  denote  the  spiritual 
world  inhabited  by  them,  as  distinguished  from  the  material  uni- 
verse. 

[For  further  information  respecting  the  Gnostics,  see  the  author's 
Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  Vols.  II.  and  III.  Iu 
telation  to  the  principal  subject  of  this  note,  see  particularly  Vol.  III. 
p.  115,  et  seqq.] 

*  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  I.  c.  19.  Opp.  I.  56.  Quod  Deterior  Po- 
tion insidiari  soleat,  c.  31.  I.  213,  214. 

t  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  I.  c.  14.  Opp.  I.  51,  52;  comp.  De  Confu- 
sione  Linguarum,  c.  28.  I.  427.  —  De  Migrat.  Abrahami,  c.  8.  1. 442 ; 
comp.  De  Somniis,  Lib.  I.  c.  15.  I.  633.  —  De  Congressu,  c.  21 
I.  536 ;  comp.  De  Mundi  Opificio,  c.  6.  I.  5.  —  De  Profugis,  c.  9 
I.  553. 

$  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  H.  c.  21.    Opp.  I.  82. 

i  Quis  Rerum  div.  Haeres,  c.  41     L  601 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.      337 

represents  Wisdom  as  the  mother  of  the  Logos; 
"  his  Father  being  God,  the  Father  of  All,  and  his 
Mother  being  Wisdom,  through  whom  all  things 
are  produced."*  In  another  place,  the  figure  being 
borrowed  from  a  passage  on  which  he  is  comment- 
ing, he  says,  that  "  to  his  Logos  God  has  given  his 
Wisdom  for  a  country  where  he  may  dwell  as  na- 
tive to  the  soil."  f 

He  repeatedly  represents  Wisdom  as  the  Spouse 
of  God,  and  the  Mother  of  all  things ;  in  the 
same  manner  (to  notice  his  coincidence  with  the 
Gnostics)  as,  in  the  PtolemaBO-Valentlnian  theory, 
Silence,  Thought,  or  Benevolence  is  assigned  as 
a  spouse  to  the  Divine  Being.  "God,"  he  says, 
"we  may  rightly  call  the  Father,  and  Wisdom  the 
Mother,  of  this  universe";  and  the  language  which 
he  uses  in  reference  to  this  conception  is  as  ab- 
horrent to  our  feelings  of  propriety,  as  that  which 
Irena3us  ascribes  to  the  Valentinians.J  Elsewhere 
be  calls  "the  Virtue  and  Wisdom  of  God  the 
mother  of  all "  ;  §  and  in  another  place  he  de- 
scribes Wisdom  as  the  daughter  of  God,  "  al- 
ways delighting,  rejoicing,  and  exulting  in  God 
her  Father  alone,"  where,  immediately  after,  he 
identifies  her  with  the  Logos. ||  Again,  he  repre- 
sents Wisdom,  "  the  daughter  of  God,"  as  properly 

•  De  Profugis,  c.  20.    I.  562. 
t  Ibid.,  c.  14.    I.  557. 

J  De  Ehrietate,  c.  8.  I.  361  (conf.  Irenaeum  cont.  Hsereses,  Lib.  L 
c.  1).  Quod  Det.  Pot.  insid.  soleat,  c.  16.  I.  201,  202.  De  Cheru- 
bim, c.  14.  1. 148. 

*  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  II.  c.  14.    Opp.  L  75. 
0  Ibid.,  Lib.  I.  c.  19.    Opp.  I.  56. 


338      OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

to  be  called  both  male  and  female,  both  father  and 
mother.* 

These  varying  accounts  of  the  Wisdom  of  God 
feeem  to  be,  in  great  part,  rhetorical  personifica- 
tions. But  when  we  recollect  that  the  Wisdom  is 
identified  with  the  Logos-  of  God  by  Philo,  as  by 
the  Christian  Fathers,  we  perceive  how  in  his  mind 
figures  of  speech  were  mixed  up  with  opinions, 
shadows  with  what  he  thought  substantial  beings. 
The  process  by  which  his  fancies  indurated  into 
doctrines  was  left  too  incomplete  for  his  scheme  to 
possess  proper  consistency.  This  will  still  further 
appear  from  what  follows. 

THE  hypostatized  Logos,  it  is  to  be  borne  in 
mind,  is  an  hypostatized  attribute  or  attributes  of 
God.  But  there  are  other  attributes,  or,  as  Philo 
denominates  them,  Powers  (Swa/i-et?)  of  God,  which 
appear  hypostatized  in  his  writings  as  distinctly 
and  permanently  as  the  Logos.  Of  this  I  will 
give  some  examples.  From  these  it  will  be  seen 
how  imperfectly  Philo's  theory  was  adjusted  in  his 
own  mind,  and  how  far  he  was  from  having  settled 
the  relation  of  the  other  Powers  of  God  to  the 
Logos.  His  conceptions  have  an  analogy  to  the 
Valentinian  system  of  ^Eons,  and  his  hypostatizing 
these  other  Powers  of  God,  if  it  did  not  give  occa- 
sion to,  at  least  countenanced,  their  speculations. 

The  six  cities  of  refuge,  appointed  by  the  Jewish 
Law,  are,  according  to  him,  symbolical  of  Powers 

*  De  Profugis,  c.  9.    I.  553. 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.      339 

of  God,  to  whom  men  may  fly  for  refuge.  The 
most  ancient,  the  strongest,  the  best,  the  metropo- 
lis, from  which  the  others  are,  as  it  were,  colonies, 
is  the  Divine  Logos,  the  Mind,  Intellect,  or  Reason 
of  God.  The  other  five  are  the  Creative,  by  which 
he  made  the  universe,  which  Moses,  according  to 
Philo,  has  called  God ;  the  Regal,  by  which  he 
governs  it,  and  which  bears  the  name  of  Lord ; 
the  Merciful;  the  Legislative  which  commands 
and  rewards;  and  the  Legislative  which  forbids 
and  punishes.  "  Over  all  these  latter  powers  is  the 
Divine  Logos,  the  most  ancient  (or  venerable)  of 
intelligible  things,  the  nearest  to  God,  nothing  in- 
tervening between  him  and  that  Being  on  whom 
he  rests,  Him  who  alone  truly  exists.  He  is  the 
charioteer  of  the  Powers  of  God,  to  whom  God 
gives  directions  for  the  right  guidance  of  the  uni- 
verse." * 

After  having  given  different  allegorical  explana- 
tions of  the  two  Cherubim  who  guarded  the  gate 
of  Paradise,  Philo  says:  "  I  have  heard  a  yet  higher 
doctrine  from  my  soul,  accustomed  to  be  divinely 
inspired,  and  to  utter  oracles  concerning  things  of 
which  itself  is  ignorant.  This  doctrine,  if  I  am 
able,  I  will  give  from  memory.  My  soul  then  said 
to  me,  that  with  the  one  God  who  possesses  true 
being,  there  are  two  highest  and  principal  Powers, 
Goodness  and  Authority ;  that  by  Goodness  all 
things  are  made,  and  by  Authority  the  creation  is 
governed ;  and  that  a  third,  which  connects  both, 

*  De  Profugis,  cc.  18,  19.  I.  560,  561.  Respecting  the  Legislative 
Powers,  comp.  De  Sacrific.  Abelis  et  Caini,  c.  39.  I.  189. 


340      OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

being  in  the  midst  between  them,  is  Reason  (Lo« 
gos),  for  by  Reason  (Logos)  God  both  rules  and 
is  good."* 

These  two  Powers  of  God  under  various  names, 
sometimes  called  the  Creative  and  the  Regal,  some- 
times Goodness  and  Authority,  sometimes  the  Be- 
neficent and  the  Disciplinary,  often  appear  in  the 
writings  of  Philo.  Sometimes  they  are  spoken 
of,  as  in  the  passage  last  quoted,  in  connection 
with  the  Logos ;  more  frequently  they  are  denomi- 
nated as  the  two  highest  'Powers  of  God,  without 
any  mention  of  the  Logos.  To  the  latter,  Philo, 
as  we  have  seen,  does  not  apply  the  name  "  God  " 
in  its  highest  sense ;  but  of  these  two  Powers  he 
repeatedly  says,  that  the  proper  name  of  the  Crea- 
tive, the  name  given  it  by  Moses,  is  "  God,"  and 
the  name  of  the  Regal,  «  Lord."  f 

When  these  Powers  are  spoken  of  by  Philo  as 
subjected  to  the  Logos,  if  he  regarded  the  Logos 
as  a  person,  it  is  clear  that  he  regarded  them  as 
persons  also ;  for  he  would  not  have  subjected 
them,  considered  merely  as  the  attributes  of  God, 
to  the  Logos,  considered  as  a  person  distinct  from 
God. 

But  the  idea  of  the  conversion  of  an  attribute  or 

*  De  Cherubim,  c.  9.    I.  143,  144. 

t  I  refer  to  some  other  of  the  passages  in  which  they  are  men 
tioned.  De  Sacrific.  Abelis  et  Caini,  c.  15.  I.  173,  174.  De  Plan- 
tatione,  c.  20.  I.  342.  De  Confusione  Linguarum,  c.  27.  I.  425. 
De  Migrat.  Abraham!,  c.  22.  I.  464.  Quis  Rerum  div.  Haeres,  c.  34 
1. 496.  De  Nominum  Mutatione,  cc.  3, 4.  I.  581  -  583.  De  Somniis, 
Lib.  I.  c.  26.  Opp.  I.  645.  De  Sacrificant.  c.  9.  II.  258.  De  Leg* 
tione  ad  Caium,  c.  1.  II.  546. 


OF    THE    DOCTMNE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  341 

power  of  God  into  a  person  had  acquired  no  such 
fixedness  and  permanent  form  in  the  speculations 
of  Philo,  as  in  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Logos, 
or  in  Ptolemy's  system  of  JBons.  Accordingly  the 
two  highest  Powers  of  God,  whose  names  are 
"  God  "  and  "  Lord,"  may  seem  often  to  be  only 
two  aspects  or  characters  under  which  he  regarded 
the  Supreme  Being.  After  having  spoken  of  them, 
by  the  names  of  the  Creative  and  Regal,  as  sym- 
bolized by  the  two  Cherubim  overshadowing  the 
Mercy-seat,  and  entitled  them,  as  usual,  "  God " 
and  "  Lord,"  he  defends  his  explanation  by  saying : 
"  For  God,  being  indeed  alone,  is  truly  a  Creator, 
since  he  brought  into  being  the  things  which  were 
not,  and  a  King  by  nature,  for  none  can  more 
justly  rule  what  is  made  than  he  who  made  it."  * 
"  It  is  customary,"  he  says  in  another  place,  "  to 
use  two  appellations  of  the  First  Cause,  that  of 
4  God'  and  that  of  'Lord.'"!  Yet  there  is  no 
passage  in  his  writings  which  seems  more  clearly 
to  resolve  them  into  mere  attributes  or  characters 
of  God,  than  one  which  is  followed  by  such  a  de- 
scription of  their  personal  agency  as  necessarily 
implies  the  conception  of  their  being  persons  dis- 
tinct from  God.  It  is  in  his  book  concerning 
Abraham ;  where  he  is  allegorizing  the  appearance 
of  the  three  angels  to  Abraham  in  the  plain  of 
Mamre.  When  the  soul,  he  says,  is  circumfused 
by  divine  light,  it  discerns  three  appearances  of  one 
object,  the  appearance  of  One  as  properly  exist- 

*  De  Mose,  Lib.  Ill  c.  8.    Opp  II.  150. 
t  Quis  Rerum  div.  Haeres,  c.  6.    I.  476. 


842       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

ing,  and  of  two  others  as  shadows  rayed  forth  from 
Him,  as  we  sometimes  in  the  world  of  the  senses 
see  two  shadows  of  a  material  object.  Of  these 
appearances,  that  in  the  midst  is  the  Father  of  All, 
He  who  Is  ;  those  on  each  side  are  his  two  most 
venerable  Powers,  the  nearest  to  himself,  the  Crea- 
tive, God,  and  the  Regal,  Lord.  Philo  then  adds, 
that  God  thus  attended  presents  sometimes  one 
and  sometimes  three  images  to  the  mental  vision  ; 
one,  when  the  soul,  thoroughly  purified,  rises  above 
all  idea  of  plurality  to  that  unmingled  form  of 
being  which  admits  of  no  mixture,  alone,  and 
wholly  independent;  three,  before  it  is  yet  initiated 
in  the  greater  mysteries,  and  cannot  contemplate 
Him  who  Is  by  himself  alone,  but  needs  the  aid 
of  something  beside,  and  views  him  through  his 
works  as  either  creating  or  ruling.* 

Philo  would  here  seem  to  intend,  that  the  lan- 
guage concerning  the  two  principal  Powers  of 
God,  when  they  are  spoken  of  as  distinct  persons, 
is  but  a  figurative  mode  of  representing  the  opera- 
tions of  the  Divine  Being,  accommodated  to  the 
weakness  of  those  who  cannot  comprehend  him  as 
he  is.  But  as  he  proceeds,  in  his  earnestness  to 
prove  that  the  account  of  the  three  angels  who  ap- 
peared to  Abraham  is  to  be  allegorized  as  relating 
to  God  and  his  two  attendant  Powers,  he  presents 
an  opposite  view.  In  the  narrative  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  Sodom,  which  immediately  follows,  only 

*  De  Abrahamo,  c.  24.  II.  18, 19.  Comp.  De  Sacrifices  Abelis  et 
Caini,  c.  15.  1.173,174.  [The  latter  passage  is  quoted  in  the  Chris- 
tiar  Examiner  for  May  1836,  Vol.  XX.  pp.  231,  232.] 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.      343 

two  angels  are  mentioned.*  This,  in  his  opinion, 
confirms  his  mode  of  interpreting  the  preceding  ac- 
count. He  who  had  withdrawn  himself  was  God, 
the  two  who  remained  were  his  two  Powers,  God 
judging  it  fit  to  bestow  favors  immediately  from 
himself,  but  to  commit  to  the  ministry  of  his  Pow- 
ers the  infliction  of  punishment.  The  Beneficent 
(another  name,  it  will  be  recollected,  for  the  Crea- 
tive) and  the  Disciplinary  (or  Regal)  were  both 
present,  the  former  to  preserve  the  city  of  Zoar, 
which  was  saved,  and  the  latter  to  destroy  the  four 
other  cities  of  the  plain.f  To  God  thus  using  the 
ministry  of  his  Powers,  Philo  compares  human 
kings  who  bestow  favors  in  person,  but  punish  by 
the  ministry  of  others. :f 

By  this  and  by  other  similar  representations. 
Philo  shows  that  he  did  often,  if  not  uniformly, 
image  to  himself  the  Powers  of  God  as  agents 
distinct  from  God.  But  how  fluctuating  were  his 
conceptions  may  appear,  not  only  from  the  seem- 
ing discrepancy  between  the  former  and  the  latter 
part  of  the  passage  I  have  quoted,  but  from  the 
absence  of  all  mention  of  the  Logos  in  this  discus- 
sion concerning  what  he  here  and  elsewhere  calls 
the  two  highest  Powers  of  God. 

WHEN,  however,  the  light  of  his  philosophy 
shone  full  around  him,  Philo  discerned  not  merely 
those  hypostatized  Powers  of  God  that  have  been 
mentioned,  but  many  others,  far  exceeding  in  num« 

*  Genesis  xix.  1,  seqq.  t  Comp.  Genesis  xiv.  2,  3 

|  De  Abrahamo,  c.  28.    II.  21,  22. 


344      OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

bei  the  Gnostic  ^Eons.  To  state  a  fact  for  which, 
strange  as  it  is,  what  precedes  may  afford  some 
preparation,  Philo,  as  a  Platonist,  hypostatized, 
generally,  the  Powers  of  God.  In  commenting 
upon  the  history  of  the  tower  of  Babel,  he  inquires 
whom  God  addressed,  when  he  said,  Come,  let  us 
go  down,  and  there  confuse  their  language.  u  He 
appears/'  he  says,  "  to  be  addressing  some  as  fel- 
low-workers." But  God  is  the  only  Maker  and 
Father  and  Lord  of  the  Universe.  How,  then, 
are  the  words  to  be  explained  ?  God,  he  answers, 
being  ONE,  is  surrounded  by  innumerable  Powers, 
all  employed  for  the  service  and  benefit  of  the 
creation.  On  these  Powers  the  angels  are  attend- 
ant ministers,  and  the  whole  army  of  each  is  under 
the  direction  of  God.  "  It  is  proper,  then,  that  the 
King  should  hold  converse  with  his  Powers,  and 
use  their  ministry  in  such  acts  as  it  is  not  fitting 
that  God  should  effect  alone."  "  Perceiving  what 
was  suitable  for  himself  and  his  creatures,  he  has 
left  some  things  to  be  wrought  out  by  his  subject 
Powers  ;  not  granting  them,  however,  independent 
authority  to  complete  anything  by  their  own  skill, 
lest  some  error  should  be  introduced  into  the  works 
of  creation."  * 

After  so  clear  an  expression  on  the  part  of  Philo 
of  his  conception  of  the  Powers  of  God  as  per- 
sonal agents  distinct  from  God,  it  is  unnecessary 
either  to  proceed  with  the  passage  which  I  have 
quoted,  in  which  this  conception  is  further  devel- 

•  De  Coufusione  Linguarum,  cc.  33,  34.    I.  430-433. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  345 

oped,  or  to  produce  at  length  others  to  the  saraa 
effect* 

WE  pass  to  other  conceptions  of  Philo,  concep- 
tions which  present  new  analogies  to  the  Valen- 
tinian  system  of  ./Eons.  As  he  who  is  about  to 
build  a  city  forms  a  plan  of  it  in  his  own  mind,  so 
God,  according  to  Philo,  before  the  work  of  crea- 
tion, formed  in  his  own  Logos,  or  mind,  a  plan  of 
the  Universe.  This  was  the  Intelligible  World, 
the  world  of  Platonic  Ideas,  the  archetypal  world, 
the  pattern  of  the  visible.  So  far  there  is  nothing 
particularly  unintelligible.  But  Philo  immediately 
converts  the  world  of  Ideas  into  the  Divine  Logos 
itself ;  and  the  confusion  becomes  at  first  view  in- 
extricable. 

After  comparing  the  archetypal  world  to  the 
plan  which  an  architect  forms  of  a  city  that  he  is 
about  to  build,  and  representing  its  seat  to  be  the 
Divine  Logos  (or  Intellect),  Philo  presents  the 
other  apparently  very  different  conception  just 
mentioned.  "  To  speak  plainly,"  he  says,  "  the 
intelligible  world  [the  world  of  Ideas]  is  nothing 
else  than  the  Logos  of  the  Creator,  as  the  intelligi- 
ble city  is  only  the  process  of  thought  in  the  archi- 
tect, considering  how  to  form  a  sensible  city  by 
means  of  an  intelligible.  This  is  not  my  doctrine, 

*  The  following  passages  may  be  consulted  upon  this  subject.  De 
Mundi  Opificio,  c.  24.  1.16,17.  De  Plantatione,  c.  12.  1.336,337. 
De  Confusione  Linguarum,  c.  27.  I.  425.  De  Migrat.  Abraham i, 
c.  32.  I.  464.  De  ProfogiB,  c.  IS.  I.  556.  De  Legat.  ad  Caium, 
c.  1.  II.  546. 


346       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

but  that  of  Moses.  For  in  describing  the  produc- 
tion of  man,  he  declares  expressly,  that  he  was 
formed  after  the  Image  of  God  [that  is,  after  the 
Logos,  whom  Philo  considers  as  the  Image  of 
God].  But  if  a  part  be  an  image  of  that  Image 
[the  Logos],  it  is  clear  that  all  of  the  same  kind, 
the  whole  sensible  world,  which  is  greater  than 
man,  is  a  copy  of  the  Divine  Image.  And  it  is 
manifest  that  the  archetypal  seal,  which  we  say 
was  the  intelligible  world,  must  be  the  archetypal 
exemplar,  the  Idea  of  Ideas,  the  Logos  of  God."  * 

"  God,"  says  Philo  in  another  place,  "  gave  form 
to  the  formless  substance  of  all  things  [primitive 
matter],  he  stamped  a  character  upon  what  bore 
no  character,  he  fashioned  what  was  without  quali- 
ties, and,  bringing  the  world  to  perfection,  put  upon 
it  his  SEAL,  his  Image,  his  Idea,  his  own  Logos."  f 

Thus,  according  to  one  conception  of  Philo,  the 
Logos  was  the  hypostatized  Intellect  of  God,  the 
former  and  the  seat  of  the  archetypal  world;  ac- 
cording to  another,  he  was  himself  the  archetypal 
world.  The  solution  of  this  problem  is  to  be  found 
in  the  fact,  that  Philo  regarded  the  hypostatized 
Powers  (or  attributes)  of  God  as  themselves  con- 
stituting the  Ideas  of  the  archetypal  world,  and, 
viewed  in  this  aspect,  as  all  contained  in  and  em- 
braced under  the  Logos,  the  most  generic  of  Ideas. 

He  says,  that,  when   Moses  desired  to  see  the 

*  De  Mundi  Opificio,  c.  6.    I.  5. 

t  De  Sommis,  Lib.  II.  c.  6.  Opp.  I.  665.  On  this  subject  see 
also  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  III.  c.  31.  Opp.  1. 106.  De  Profugis,  c.  2, 
I.  547,  548. 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.       347 

glory  of  God,  that  is,  the  Powers  encompassing 
God,  "  God  answered  him,  The  Powers  which  you 
desire  to  see  are  altogether  invisible  and  intelligible 
[that  is,  objects  of  intellect  alone],  I  myself  being 
invisible  and  intelligible.  I  call  them  intelligible, 
not  as  if  they  had  as  yet  been  comprehended  by 
intellect,  but  because,  if  it  be  possible  they  should 
be  comprehended,  it  cannot  be  by  sense,  but  by 
intellect  in  its  highest  state  of  purity.  But  though 
their  essence  is  thus  incomprehensible,  they  give 
forth  to  view  impressions  and  images  of  their  en- 
ergy. For  as  the  seals  used  by  men  stamp  count- 
less impressions  upon  wax  or  any  similar  material, 
without  losing  anything  of  their  substance,  so  it  is 
to  be  understood  that  the  Powers  around  me  give 
qualities  to  things  without  quality,  and  forms  to 
things  without  form,  their  eternal  nature  remain- 
ing unchanged  and  without  loss.  Some  among 
men  not  improperly  call  them  Ideas.  They  confer 
upon  each  being  its  peculiar  properties.*  To  the 
disorderly,  the  boundless,  the  undefined,  the  form- 
less, [that  is,  to  primitive  matter,]  they  give  order 
and  bounds  and  limits  and  form,  changing  alto 
gether  the  worse  into  the  better."  f 

"  It  was  not  fit,"  according  to  Philo,  "  that  God 
himself  should  mould  the  boundless  and  chaotic 
mass  of  matter ;  but  by  means  of  his  incorporeal 

*  The  original  of  this  and  the  preceding  sentence  does  not  admit 
of  a  literal  translation.  It  is  as  follows  :  'Oyo/iafbixri  8'  avras  OVK 
dno  O-KOTTOV  rives  TODV  irap  vp.lv  Ideas,  eVeiSi)  exaoroj>  ra>v  ovratt 

IdlOTTOlOVCTl. 

1  De  Monarch^,  Lib.  I.  c.  6.    Opp.  II.  218,  219. 
34 


348      OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

Powers,  whose  proper  name  is  Ideas,  he  gave  to 
every  kind  of  thing  the  form  suitable  to  it."* 

This  doctrine  concerning  the  Powers  of  God,  as 
the  archetypal  Ideas  of  all  created  things,  was  so 
connected  in  the  imagination  of  Philo,  when  he 
wrote  this  passage,  with  his  belief  in  God  as  the 
creator  of  all  things,  that  he  represents  it  as  an 
impiety  scarcely  less  than  atheism  to  deny  it. 

The  imaginations  of  Philo  concerning  the  Pow- 
ers of  God,  as  Ideas  of  the  archetypal  world,  were 
not  peculiar  to  himself.  They  appear  in  the  spec- 
ulations of  others  among  the  later  disciples  of 
Plato,  and  seem  to  have  extensively  prevailed. 

"  Some  of  the  Platonists  and  Pythagoreans," 
says  Cudworth,  "declaring  the  second  hypostasis 
of  their  Trinity  [Intellect,  Nous,  answering  to  the 
Logos  of  Philo]  to  be  the  archetypal  world,  or,  as 
Philo  calls  it,  the  world  that  is  compounded  and 
made  up  of  Ideas,  and  containeth  in  it  all  those 
kinds  of  things  intelligibly  that  are  in  this  lower 
world  sensibly ;  and  further  concluding,  that  all 
these  several  Ideas  of  this  archetypal  world  are 
really  so  many  distinct  substances,  animals  and 
gods,  have  therefore  made  that  second  hypostasis 
not  to  be  one  God,  but  a  congeries  and  heap  of 
Gods."f  These  Ideas  were  conceived  of  as  ex- 
isting in  God,  as  Ideas  of  God.  They  are,  in  the 
language  of  Philo,  the  Powers  of  God,  causing  all 
things  in  the  created  universe  to  be  what  they  are. 

*  De  Sacrificantibus,  c.  13.    II.  261. 

t  Intellectual  System,  p.  553.     [Ch   IV.  $  36.     Vol.  I  p.  729, 
Andover  ed  ] 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.      349 

They  are,  as  Cudworth  says,  "  animals  and  gods," 
that  is,  in  other  terms,  divine  persons.  For  farther 
illustration  of  this  subject,  I  refer  to  the  chapter  I 
have  quoted,  the  fourth  of  the  "  Intellectual  Sys- 
tem," without,  however,  intending  to  imply  any 
general  assent  to  the  remarks  and  inferences  of 
Cudworth. 

HAVING  long  since  passed  the  bounds  of  all 
sober  speculation,  we  may,  perhaps,  be  prepared 
for  the  strange  chaos  of  opinions  which  has  at  last 
opened  upon  us, — 

"  Congestaque  eodem 
Non  bene  junctarum  discordia  seinina  rerum." 

The  description  of  the  poet  may  be  still  further 
applied  to  these  ancient  doctrines :  — 

"  Lucis  egens  afir :  nulli  sua  forma  manebat : 
Obstabatque  aliis  aliud."  * 

The  imagination  of  Philo  with  which  we  have 
at  present  most  concern,  is  that  by  which  he  con- 
verted the  attributes  of  God  into  proper  persons. 
The  same  conception,  if  conception  it  may  be 
called,  the  same  formless  aggregate  of  antagoniz- 
ing ideas,  is  one  which  has  made  its  apparition  in 
various  systems.  It  appears,  as  we  have  seen,  in 
the  theories  of  the  later  Platonists.  It  was,  as  I 
am  now  about  to  show,  the  basis  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Logos,  as  held  by  the  Fathers  of  the  first 
four  centuries.  It  is  the  key  to  the  Gnostic  sys« 

*  [Ovid.  Metam.  L  8, 17.1 


350      OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGO8 


tern  of  ^Eons,  the  derivative  ^iEons  being  attri- 
butes and  Ideas  hypostatized.  It  is  the  essentia 
principle  of  the  speculations  of  the  Jewish  Cab- 
alists  concerning  the  Divinity  ;  and  through  con- 
nections, which  as  yet  have  not  been  traced,  it 
presents  itself  broadly  developed  in  the  theology 
of  the  Bramins. 

Of  the  obscure  system  of  the  Gnostic  ^Eons,  it 
would  be  out  of  place  here  to  enter  into  any  fur- 
ther explanation  than  has  been  incidentally  given. 
Between  the  speculations  of  the  Cabalists  and 
those  of  Philo  and  the  later  Platonists  there  is 
much  coincidence,  particularly  as  regards  the  topic 
before  us.  "The  Cabalists,"  says  Basnage,  "re- 
garding God  as  an  infinite,  incomprehensible  es- 
sence, between  which  and  created  things  there  can 
be  no  immediate  communication,  have  imagined 
that  he  has  made  himself  known,  and  has  operated, 
by  his  perfections  which  have  emanated  from  him.'* 
"  It  is  their  style,"  he  says,  "  to  speak  of  the  per- 
fections of  God  as  of  persons  different  from  his 
essence."*  The  first  and  greatest  of  the  emana 
tions  from  him  they  denominate  "  Adam  Kadmon." 
It  is  in  him  that  the  Powers  of  God  are  mani- 
fested ;  he  is  the  source  of  all  subsequent  existence. 
He  corresponds  to  the  Logos  of  Philo  and  the 
Christian  Fathers,  and  to  the  Nous  or  Intellect  of 
the  later  Platonists  and  Gnostics.  He  was  the 
prototype  of  man,  as  the  Logos  is  represented  by 
Philo.  Through  him  were  developed  ten  attri- 

*  Histoire  des  Juifs,  Liv.  m.  c.  14. 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.       351 

bu;es  of  the  Divinity,  denominated  "  Sephiroths  " 
or  "  Splendors,"  each  having  its  appropriate  name. 
These  emanations  are  the  hypostatized  Powers  of 
God,  through  which  he  is  manifested. 

In  the  chapter  from  which  I  have  quoted,  Bas- 
nage  is  disposed  to  ~2gard  the  whole  system  of  the 
Cabalists  as  an  allegory,  and  their  language  con- 
cerning the  personal  character  of  the  Sephiroths  as 
figurative.  But  he  says  :  u  They  push  their  alle- 
gories so  far  that  it  is  difficult  to  follow  them  ; 
they  so  frequently  speak  of  these  perfections  as  of 
so  many  different  persons,  that  the  greatest  atten- 
tion is  necessary,  not  to  be  deceived."  If,  how- 
ever, the  Cabalists  had  not  conceived  of  these 
perfections  as  proper  persons,  they  would  not  have 
represented  them  as  emanating.  Basnage,  indeed, 
seems  to  have  abandoned  this  view  of  their  sys- 
tem in  a  subsequent  volume;*  in  which  he  sup- 
poses the  Cabalists  to  have  viewed  them  as  em- 
anant  condensations  of  that  divine  light,  which, 
according  to  them,  was  the  substance  of  God, 
"  having  a  kind  of  existence  separate  from  him, 
though  always  near  him."  In  the  chapter  from 
which  I  have  last  quoted,  he  states  that  they  be- 
lieved in  four  modes  of  creation,  or  the  production 
of  being.  The  first  of  these  was  emanation  from 
the  substance  of  God.  The  Sephiroths  were  placed 
by  them  in  the  World  of  Emanations,  correspond- 
ing to  the  Pleroma  of  the  Gnostics.  The  Cab- 
alists held  that  there  was  but  one  substance  in 


•  Liv.  IV.  c.  8. 
84* 


352       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS- 

the  universe,  that  of  God ;  a  fundamental  doctrine 
in  the  theology  of  the  Hindoos.  Hence  they  would 
ascribe  real  personality  to  the  Sephiroths,  equally 
as  to  other  beings  composed  of  this  one  substance. 
It  is  the  certainty  that  the  Sephiroths  were  attri- 
butes of  God,  and  the  actual  impossibility  of  an 
attribute  being  a  person,  that  has  led  to  the  inef- 
fectual attempts  to  allegorize  their  system.  A 
similar  cause  has  operated  in  the  same  way  in 
regard  to  other  systems  of  a  like  kind,  especially 
that  of  the  Gnostics.  But  the  truth  is,  that  in  all 
these  systems  the  attributes  of  God  were  regarded 
both  as  attributes  and  as  persons,  or,  to  express 
the  imagination  by  a  single  term,  as  hypostatized 
attributes. 

In  respect  to  the  mythology  of  the  Hindoos, 
every  one  who  has  given  attention  to  the  subject 
is  aware,  that  one  "of  its  most  distinguishing  fea- 
tures is  the  hypostatizing  of  the  attributes  and 
manifestations  of  the  Deity.  One  Supreme  Being 
is  recognized,  but  no  worship  is  paid  him.  He 
manifests  himself,  it  is  supposed,  under  three 
hypostases,  as  the  Creator,  Brahma  ;  the  Pre- 
server,  Vishnu ;  and  the  Destroyer,  or  Changer 
of  Forms,  Siva  ;  with  their  accompanying  Ener- 
gies, likewise  hypostatized  as  females.  Either 
Siva  or  Vishnu,  alone,  or  both  in  connection,  to 
the  exclusion  of  Brahma,  are  at  the  present  day 
worshipped  as  Supreme.  To  all  three,  and  to  the 
goddesses  who  are  associated  with  them,  are  as- 
cribed personal  characters  and  personal  actions, 
and  such  too  as  are  most  abhorrent  to  our  con 
ceptions  of  the  Divinity. 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.       353 

But  these  are  not  the  only  divine  attributes 
hypostatized  by  the  Hindoos.  "  The  Ved  having, 
in  the  first  instance,  personified  all  the  attributes 
and  powers  of  the  Deity,  and  also  the  celestial 
bodies  and  natural  elements,  does,  in  conformity 
to  the  idea  of  personification,  treat  of  them  in  the 
subsequent  passages  as  if  they  were  real  beings, 
ascribing  to  them  birth,  animation,  senses,  and 
accidents,  as  well  as  liability  to  annihilation."* 

The  author  from  whom  I  have  made  the  last 
extract,  one  of  the  most  enlightened  men  whom 
India  or  the  world  has  produced,  in  his  labors  to 
reclaim  his  countrymen  from  idolatry,  has  shown 
that  the  Vedas  teach  the  existence  and  worship  of 
him  who  is  alone  God.  This,  however,  does  not 
prove  that  the  writers  might  not  conceive  of  his 
attributes  as  proper  persons ;  for  Philo,  and  the 
Cabalists,  and  the  Gnostics,  all  affirmed  the  unity 
of  God.  The  Hindoo  theists  represent  all  finite 
spirits  as  portions  of  God's  substance,  as  the  flames 
of  separate  candles  are  each  a  portion  of  elemental 
fire ;  or  as  the  numberless  reflections  of  the  sun's 
rays  are  only  modifications  of  his  light. 

IN  endeavoring  to  apprehend  the  process  of 
thought  that  has  thus  led  to  the  hypostatizing 
of  the  powers  and  attributes  of  the  Divinity,  it 
may  perhaps  assist  us  if  we  recollect  the  manner 
in  which  the  human  mind  has  been  decomposed, 
and  its  faculties,  affections,  and  relations  personi- 

*  Rammohun  Roy,  Second   Defence  of  the  Monotheistic*!   Sys- 
tem of  the  Veds.  p.  17,  note 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

fied.  The  qualities,  acts,  and  even  sufferings,  ot 
real  persons  are  familiarly  ascribed  to  them.  We 
speak  of  being  governed  by  Reason,  and  of  Rea- 
son as  bewildered  ;  Hope  cheers  and  leads  us  on  ; 
Imagination  pictures  for  us  fairer  scenes  than  re- 
ality presents ;  the  voice  of  Duty  is  to  be  obeyed 
without  hesitation ;  and  Conscience  is  the  vicege- 
rent of  God  within  us.  All  such  expressions  we 
recognize  at  once  as  merely  figurative ;  because 
we  are  too  well  acquainted  with  the  subject  to 
which  they  relate  to  understand  them  otherwise. 
We  may  regard  reason  as  a  faculty  of  the  mind, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  image  reason  to  ourselves  as 
a  person,  without  difficulty  or  absurdity.  But  in 
relation  to  subjects  that  present  any  considerable 
degree  of  obscurity,  as,  for  instance,  the  mind  of 
God,  nothing  is  more  common  than  for  figurative 
language  to  harden,  if  I  may  so  speak,  into  literal. 
A.n  imagination  is  easily  transformed  into  a  sup- 
posed apprehension.  There  is  a  tendency  in  every 
idea  that  dwells  long  in  the  mind  to  assume  a  char- 
acter of  reality.*  To  the  admission  of  metaphors 
as  literal  truths  is  to  be  ascribed  a  great  part  of 
the  errors  and  follies,  and  consequently  of  the  vices, 
of  men.  These  errors,  too,  it  is  often  difficult  to 
expel ;  for  when  the  imaginary  conception  that 

*  [See  before,  pp.  313,  334,  S38.  —  "Though  vivid  conception  is 
not,  as  it  has  been  said  to  be,  belief,  yet  we  readily  pass  from  it  to  the 
opinion,  that  what  presents  itself  to  our  apprehension  in  such  well- 
defined  lineaments  and  permanent  colors  must  have  a  real  exist- 
ence." (Article  by  Mr.  Norton  on  the  Authorship  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  ;n  the  Christian  Examiner  for  January  1828,  Vol.  V 
p.  38.)] 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.      355 

has  intruded  itself  out  of  place  is  hardly  pressed, 
it  may  assume  for  the  moment  its  proper  charac- 
ter, and  retreat  into  its  own  sphere,  ready  to  return 
and  reassume  its  reign  whenever  the  conflict  is 
over. 

WE  come  now  to  the  purpose  for  which  I  have 
entered  into  the  preceding  explanations.  We  have 
seen  how  extensively  the  doctrine  has  prevailed  of 
hypostatized  attributes  of  God.  This  doctrine  is 
in  itself  so  unintelligible,  and  is  so  foreign  from 
the  philosophy  of  the  present  day,  that  it  is  not 
strange  that  the  fact  of  its  prevalence,  and  even 
of  its  existence,  has  been  but  imperfectly  appre- 
hended ;  and  that  modern  inquirers,  when  they 
perceived  that  some  object  of  thought  was  re- 
garded as  an  attribute  of  God,  have  supposed  that 
it  could  not  also  be  regarded  as  a  proper  person. 
But  there  is  no  doubt  that  these  conceptions, 
however  incongruous,  have  been  brought  together. 
It  was  in  this  mode  of  apprehending  the  Divine 
Being  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  had  its  ori- 
gin. The  Logos  of  the  first  four  centuries  was,  in 
the  view  of  the  Fathers,  both  an  attribute  or  attri- 
butes of  God,  and  a  proper  person.  Their  philos- 
ophy was,  in  general,  that  of  the  later  Platonists, 
and  they  transferred  from  it  into  Christianity  this 
mode  of  conception. 

In  treating  of  this  fact,  so  strange,  and  one 
which  will  be  so  new  to  many  readers,  I  will  first 
quote  a  passage  from  Origen,  the  coincidence  of 
which  with  the  conceptions  of  Philo  and  the  later 


356       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGO8. 

Platonists  is  apparent.  In  commenting  on  the 
introduction  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  he  makes,  as  I 
have  before  said,*  a  distinction  between  the  Wis- 
dom and  the  Logos  of  God,  and  supposes  his 
Logos  to  be  comprehended  in  his  Wisdom.  The 
Son,  or  Christ,  he  represents  as  both  the  Logos 
and  Wisdom  of  God.  Of  the  Wisdom  of  God  he 
*hus  speaks  :  f  "  Nor  must  we  omit  that  Christ  [or 
Jesus,  for  Origen  uses  the  names  indiscriminately] 
is  properly  the  Wisdom  of  God  ;  and  is,  therefore, 
so  denominated.  For  the  Wisdom  of  the  God 
and  Father  of  All  has  not  its  being  in  bare  con- 
ceptions, analogous  to  the  conceptions  in  human 
minds.  But  if  any  one  be  capable  of  forming  an 
idea  of  an  incorporeal  being-  of  diverse  forms  of 
thought,  which  comprehend  the  LOGOI  [the  archetypal 
forms]  of  all  things,  a  being  indued  with  life,  and 
having,  as  it  were,  a  soul,  he  will  know  that  the 
Wisdom  of  God,  who  is  above  every  creature,  pro- 
nounced rightly  concerning  herself,  The  Lord  cre- 
ated me,  the  beginning,  his  way  to  his  works."  $ 

In  this  passage,  the  proper  wisdom  of  God  is 
hypostatized,  and  described  as  the  Logos  of  Philo, 
or  the  Nous  (Intellect)  of  the  later  Platonists.  A 
little  after,  there  is  the  following  account  of  th( 
Logos  and  other  Powers  of  God  as  hypostatized, 
corresponding  equally  vith  the  conceptions  of  Philo 
and  the  Platonists.  Having  declared  the  Logos  to 
be  comprehended  in  the  Wisdom  of  God,  he  goes 

*  See  before,  p.  335,  note.  t  Opp.  IV.  39,  40. 

$  Prov.  viii.  22,  according  to  some  copy  of  the  Septuagint,  or  othsi 
Greek  translation,  used  by  Origen. 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.       357 

on  to  teach,  that  it  has  still  "a  proper  distinct  being 
of  its  own,  so  as  to  possess  life  in  itself."  In  order 
to  comprehend  this,  he  says :  "  We  must  speak 
not  only  of  the  Power,  but  of  the  Powers  of  God. 
Thus  says  the  Lord  of  the  Powers*  is  an  expression 
which  often  occurs,  in  which  by  '  Powers '  is  meant 
certain  living  beings,  rational  and  divine,  the  high- 
est and  best  of  whom  is  Christ,  who  is  called  not 
merely  the  Wisdom,  but  the  Power  of  God.  There 
being,  then,  many  Powers  of  God,  each  of  whom 
has  his  distinct  being,  and  all  of  whom  the  Saviour 
excels,  Christ  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  Logos  [the 
Supreme  Reason  over  all  the  other  rational  Pow- 
ers], having  his  personal  existence  in  the  Begin- 
ning, that  is,  in  Wisdom  ;  differing  from  that  Rea- 
son which  exists  in  us,  and  has  no  distinct  being 
out  of  us."  f 

Obscure  as  these  passages  may  be  to  one  not 
familiar  with  the  conceptions  and  language  of  the 
philosophy  to  which  they  belong,  they  are  still 
sufficiently  clear  as  to  the  main  point  which  they 
have  been  brought  to  establish.  It  is  a  fact,  how- 
ever, which  has  not  been,  under  any  of  its  aspects, 
adverted  to  by  a  great  majority  of  writers  who 
have  treated  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Of  the 
notices  relating  to  it,  there  is  one  by  Clarke,  in  his 
Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,:):  which  it  may 
be  worth  while  to  bring  forward,  before  adducing 

*  Kvptor  rS)v  &vi>a/i*&>i>,  LXX.     The  rendering  of  the  Common 
Version  is  u  Lord  of  Hosts." 
t  Opp.  IV.  47. 
J  Part  II.  $  18,  Notes,  3d.  ed. 


358       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

further  quotations  from  the  Fathers.  I  present  it 
in  a  somewhat  abridged  form. 

"  Among  the  writers,"  he  says,  u  before  the  time 
of  the  Council  of  Nice,  Theophilus,  Tatian,  and 
Athenagoras  seem  to  have  been  of  that  opinion, 
that  the  Word  (the  Logos)  was  the  internal  Rea- 
son or  Wisdom  of  the  Father ;  and  yet,  at  the 
same  time,  they  speak  as  if  they  supposed  that 
Word  to  be  produced  or  generated  into  a  real 
Person ;  which  is  wholly  unintelligible,  and  seems 
to  be  a  mixture  of  two  opinions :  the  one,  of  the 
generality  of  Christians,  who  believed  the  Word  to 
be  a  real  Person ;  the  other,  of  the  Jews  and  Jew- 
ish Christians,  who  personated  the  internal  Wis- 
dom of  God,  or  spake  of  it  figuratively  (according 
to  the  genius  of  their  language)  as  of  a  person. 

"Irenaeus  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus  speak  some- 
times with  some  ambiguity,  but,  upon  the  whole, 
plainly  enough  understand  the  Word  or  Son  of 
God  to  be  a  real  person. 

"  The  other  writers  before  the  Council  of  Nice 
do  generally  speak  of  him  clearly  and  distinctly  as 
of  a  real  person. 

"  About  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  they 
spake  with  more  uncertainty ;  sometimes  arguing 
that  the  Father,  considered  without  the  Son,  would 
be  without  Reason  and  without  Wisdom ;  which 
is  directly  supposing  the  Son  to  be  nothing  but  an 
attribute  of  the  Father;  and  yet  at  other  times 
expressly  maintaining,  that  he  was  truly  and  per- 
fectly a  Son.  But  the  greater  part  agreed  in  this 
latter  notion,  that  he  was  a  real  person." 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.       359 

In  t  .is  passage  there  are  two  errors.  The  first 
is  the  implication  that  the  conception  of  the  Logos 
is  an  attribute  was  more  prevalent  about  the  time 
of  the  Council  of  Nice  than  it  had  been  before. 
On  the  contrary,  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Lo- 
gos was  as  of  an  attribute  of  God.  His  attribute 
it  was  conceived  to  be,  equally  as  reason  is  an 
attribute  of  man.  The  other  error  is  in  the  sup- 
position that  the  Fathers  who  spoke  of  the  Logos 
as  a  person  could  not  also  have  imagined  him  to 
be  an  attribute.  The  Fathers  of  the  first  four  cen- 
turies, generally,  believed  the  Logos  (if  we  may  so 
use  the  word  believe)  to  be  both  an  attribute  and  a 
person.  I  will  quote  a  few  examples  of  their  lan- 
guage. 

Justin  Martyr,  speaking  of  his  "  second  god," 
whom  I  have  formerly  mentioned,*  declares  that 
"  this  god,  produced  from  the  Father  of  All,  is  the 
reason  (logos)  and  wisdom  and  power  of  him  who 
produced  him,"  and  immediately  identifies  him  with 
Wisdom  as  personified  in  the  Proverbs.f  Justin 
was  one  of  the  first,  perhaps  the  first,  Christian 
writer  who  gave  a  form  to  the  Catholic  doctrine 
of  the  Logos.  His  contemporary,  Athenagoras, 
says  that  "  the  Son  is  the  intellect  and  the  reason 
(logos)  of  the  Father."  "  He  is  the  first  produc- 
tion of  the  Father,  not  with  reference  to  any  com- 
mencement of  existence;  for  from  the  beginning, 
God,  being  the  eternal  mind,  always  had  reason 
(logos)  in  himself,  as  being  eternally  rational ;  but 

*  [Seebefo-e,  pp.  204,  205.] 

t  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  267.  [al.  c.  61.  p.  284,  C.] 

35 


360       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS, 

with  reference  to  his  going  forth  [his  emanation 
from  God],  to  be  the  Idea  [the  formative  princi- 
ple] and  the  energy  of  the  formless  nature  of  ma- 
terial things."*  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  another 
contemporary,  calls  the  Logos  "the  spirit,  the  wis- 
dom, and  the  power  of  the  Most  High ; the 

wisdom  of  God  which  was  in  him  ^before  the  world 
was,  and  his  holy  reason  (logos)  which  is  always 
with  him."  f  The  Logos,  he  teaches,  "  existed  al- 
ways internally  in  the  rnind  of  God.  Before  any- 
thing was  created,  it  was  his  counsellor,  being  his 
intellect  and  thought;  but  when  God  was  about 
to  form  what  he  had  determined  on,  he  generated 
it  externally,  as  the  First-born  of  the  whole  crea- 
tion, not  making  himself  void  of  reason  (logos), 
but  generating  reason,  and  always  holding  con- 
verse with  his  reason."  $ 

On  this  subject  Irenseus  has  fallen,  if  it  be 
possible,  into  greater  confusion  and  contradictions 
than  the  other  writers  of  his  age.  He  often  speaks 
of  the  Logos  or  Son  as  of  a  person  distinct  from 
God,  and  describes  him  as  a  minister  of  God's 
will.  He  himself  says,  that  St.  John  teaches  his 
"  effectual  "§  generation,  which,  according  to  his 
use  of  this  language  elsewhere,  must  mean  his 
production  from  the  substance  of  God  as  in  all 
respects  a  proper  person.  But  in  his  zeal  against 

*  Legatio  pro  Christianis,  §  10.  p.  287,  edit.  Paris,  1742. 
t  Ad  Autolycum,  Lib.  II.  §  10.  p.  355,  edit.  Paris,  1742. 
t  Ibid.,  §  22.  p.  365. 

{  Efficabilem,  i.  e.  efficacem.  Lib.  III.  c.  11.  §8;  comp.  Lib.  H 
c.  17.  $  2. 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.       361 

the  Gnostic  doctrine  of  emanation,  he  not  only 
uses  such  language  as  shows  that  he  regarded  the 
Logos  as  an  attribute,  but  such  as  is  inconsistent 
with  the  imagination  of  his  being  anything  but  an 
attribute.  Referring  to  the  first  of  the  Gnostic 
emanations,  Intellect  or  Mind,  and  to  the  second, 
Logos,  Reason,  he  says :  "  The  Father  of  All  is 
not  a  composite  being,  something  else  beside 
Mind  ;  but  Mind  is  the  Father,  and  the  Father 
is  Mind."  Having  thus  identified  Mind  or  Intel- 
lect with  the  Father,  he  immediately  proceeds  to 
identify  Intellect  with  Reason  or  the  Logos.*  In 
another  passage,  he  describes  God  as  being  "all 
Mind  and  all  Logos."  "  His  thought,"  he  says,  "is 
his  Logos,  and  his  Logos  his  Mind,  and  the  all- 
embracing  Mind  is  the  Father  himself."  f  Speak- 
ing a  little  before  of  the  Gnostic  system  as  con- 
sisting in  transferring  to  God  conceptions  of  differ- 
ent affections  and  faculties  of  the  human  mind,  he 
considers  it  as  irreverent  to  regard  the  Divinity  as 
thus  affected  and  divided,  "God  being  all  mind, 
all  reason  (ratio,  i.  e.  Logos),  one  operating  spirit, 
all  light,  ever  the  same  without  change."  J 

From  many  passages  which  might  be  quoted  it 
is  my  purpose  only  to  produce  a  few,  in  order 
clearly  to  illustrate  the  conceptions  of  the  Fathers 
upon  this  subject.  Clement  of  Alexandria  says: 
"  The  Logos  of  the  Father  of  All  is  the  wisdom 
and  goodness  of  God  made  most  clearly  manifest, 
his  almighty  and  truly  divine  power,  his  sovereign 

*  Lib.  H.  c.  17.  §  7.  t  Lib.  H.  c.  28.  §  5. 

J  Lib.  II.  c.  28.  §  4.    See  further  on  this  subject,  Lib.  II.  c.  13. 


362      OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

will."*  His  meaning  is  that  the  Logos  denotes 
the  attributes  of  God  as  manifested  in  the  creation 
and  government  of  the  universe ;  but  there  is  no 
question  that  he  also  considered  the  Logos  as  a 
person.  By  Tertullian,  Christ  is  described  as  "  the 
power  of  God  and  the  spirit  of  God,  the  dis 
course  (sermo),  and  wisdom,  and  reason,  and  Sor 
of  God."f  I  have  quoted  passages  from  Origen 
in  which  he  represents  both  the  Wisdom  of  God, 
and  the  Logos  or  Reason  of  God,  as  living  beings. 
In  the  following,  the  Logos  fades  away  into  a  dim 
Platonic  Idea.  "  We  are  reproached  by  Celsus," 
he  says,  "  for  avoiding  evil  deeds,  and  reverencing 
and  honoring  Virtue  as  produced  by  God,  and 

being  the   Son  of  God If  we  speak   of  a 

second  god,  let  it  be  understood  that  we  mean 
nothing  else  than  that  Virtue  which  comprehends 
all  virtues  [i.  e.  the  most  generic  Idea  of  virtue] 
and  that  Reason  (Logos)  which  comprehends  the 
reasons  of  all  things  properly  natural,  and  tending 
to  the  good  of  the  universe."  J  The  Son,  he  ex- 
pressly teaches  elsewhere,  is  the  Wisdom  of  God 
existing  substantially^ 

Petavius,  in  one  of  the  chapters  of  his  "  Theologi- 
ca  Dogmata,"  ||  discusses  the  question,  "  Whether 
the  Son  is  the  very  wisdom  by  which  the  Father 
is  wise,"  —  An  ipsa  sapientia  qua  Pater  sapiens  est 


*  Stromat.  V.  f  1.  pp.  646,  647.  t  Apologet.  §  23. 

t  Contra  Celsura,  Lib.  V.  $  39.    Opp.  I.  608. 
§  In  his  Commentary  on  John  before  quoted,  and  in  his  work  D« 
1'riacipiis,  Lib.  1.  c.  2. 

|  De  Trinitate,  Lib  VI.  c.  9. 


OP  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.      30d 

nt  Filius.  After  showing  that  this  was  the  com- 
mon doctrine  of  the  Fathers  (plerique  sic  existi- 
masse  videntur),  he  produces  in  favor  of  the  oppo- 
site opinion,  which  he  himself  maintains,  only  the 
vacillating  authority  of  Augustine,  who  retracted 
on  this  subject  the  common  opinion,  which  he  had 
once  asserted.  The  great  argument  of  Athanasius 
and  his  followers  for  the  eternity  of  the  Logos 
was,  that  God,  being  always  rational,  always  had 
Reason  (the  Logos)  within  him.  "  There  is  no 
other  wisdom,"  according  to  Athanasius,  "  in  the 
Father  than  the  Lord  (Christ)."*  «  The  Son,"  he 
says,  "is  the  very  wisdom,  the  very  reason,  the 
very  power  of  the  Father."  f  He  was  described 
by  others  as  the  power,  the  omnipotence,  and  the 
will  of  the  Father.  It  is  unnecessary  in  this  con- 
nection to  quote  the  passages  at  length,  J  or  to  ad- 

*  Epistola  Encyclica  contra  Arianos,  §  14.  Opp.  I.  284,  edit.  Ben- 
edict 

t  Contra  Gentes,  §  46.    Opp.  I.  46. 

J  Many  passages  to  this  effect  may  be  found  in  the  first  volume  of 
the  work  of  Petavius,  Lib.  V.  c.  8.  Respecting  this  whole  topic,  the 
reader  who  wishes  to  pursue  the  inquiry  may  consult  Petavius,  as 
already  referred  to,  and  likewise  De  Trinitate,  Lib.  I.  cc.  3,  4,  5 ;  and 
Priestley's  History  of  Early  Opinions,  Vol.  II.  pp.  44  - 144.  There 
are  considerable  errors  in  Priestley,  but  none  such  as  essentially  affect 
his  argument,  or  are  likely,  with  one  exception,  much  to  embarrass 
or  mislead  his  reader.  One  is,  that  Philo  regarded  the  personality  of 
the  Logos  as  occasional  only,  a  notion  for  which  there  is  no  founda- 
tion in  his  works.  But  the  particular  error  to  which  I  have  referred 
is  the  implication  in  several  passages,  that  the  Logos  conceived  of  as 
a  person  was  not  conceived  of  as  being  at  the  same  time  an  attri- 
bute, —  that  he  was  only  regarded  as  having  been  first  an  attribute, 
and  then  a  person. 

It  was  indeed,  as  has  been  shown  by  Priestley  and  others,  the  ex- 
35  • 


364       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

duce  additional  proof  of  the  general  fact  main- 
tained. I  will  only  further  mention  one  concep- 
tion, more  strange  than  those  already  noticed. 
"Perhaps,"  says  Origen,  "if  we  may  venture  to 
speculate  still  further,  we  may  conceive  of  the 
Only  Son  as  the  soul  of  God.  For  as  the  soul 
placed  within  the  body  moves  every  part,  and  ex- 
cites all  its  operations,  so  the  Only  Son  of  God, 
who  is  his  reason  (Verbum,  i.  e.  -4oyo?),  and  wis- 
dom, being  placed  within  him,  extends  to  and 
reaches  every  power  of  God."*  The  extravagance 
of  this  imagination  becomes  perhaps  more  striking, 
when  we  compare  it  with  the  strong  language  of 
Origen  concerning  the  inferiority  of  the  Son  to  the 
Father. 

IN  all  the  systems  before  mentioned,  in  which 
attributes  of  God  have  been  hypostatized,  with  the 

press  doctrine  of  several  of  the  Fathers,  that  the  Logos,  existing 
primarily  in  God,  was  afterwards  "  generated,"  and  put  forth  as  the 
Son,  by  the  voluntary  act  of  the  Father,  to  be  his  agent  in  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world.  The  doctrine  is  thus  expressed,  for  instance,  by 
Prudentius :  — 

"  Ex  ore  quamlibet  Patris 

Sis  ortus,  et  Verbo  editus, 

Tamen  paterno  in  pectore 

Sophia  callebas  prius." 

[Cathemerin.  XL  17.] 

The  Fathers  who  held  this  doctrine  are  commonly  supposed  not  to 
have  ascribed  personality  to  the  Logos  before  his  generation  and 
emanation.  But  they  nowhere,  I  think,  expressly  affirm  that  he  was 
then  not  a  person  j  and  still  less  is  it  to  bq  thought,  that,  after  hii 
generation,  they  ceased  to  regard  him  as  an  attribute 
*  De  Principiis  Lib.  II.  c.  10.  §  5.  Opp.  I.  96, 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOtSOS.  365 

exception  of  the  later  form  of  Trinitarian  Ortho- 
doxy, these  attributes,  when  conceived  of  as  per- 
sons, have  been  regarded  as  far  inferior  to  God. 
The  nature,  indeed,  and  operations  of  the  attribute 
belong  and  are  to  be  referred  immediately  to  God. 
It  is  indifferent  whether  we  say  that  the  universe 
was  created  by  the  disposing  power  of  the  Supreme 
Being,  or  created  by  the  Supreme  Being,  if  we  use 
the  former  term  merely  to  denote  an  attribute.  But 
when  a  personal  character  is  superadded  to  this  at- 
tribute, then  the  new  being  becomes,  as  a  person, 
inferior  to  the  Supreme.  He  is  not  God,  but  a  god 
only.  Still,  in  regard  to  the  Christian  Logos,  his 
substance  being  conceived  of  as  derived  from  the 
substance  of  the  Deity,  as  generated  out  of  it,  —  a 
prolation  or  emanation  from  it,  like  a  stream  from  a 
fountain,  a  branch  from  a  tree,  or  rays  of  light  from 
the  sun, — he  was  under  this  aspect,  as  well  as  under 
the  relation  of  an  attribute,  to  a  certain  extent  iden- 
tified with  God  *  by  the  earlier  Fathers.  To  a  cer- 
tain extent  only,  for,  in  reference  to  the  totality  of 

*  Thus  it  becomes  not  unfrequently  difficult  to  determine,  in  pas- 
sages in  which  the  name  Qeos,  or  Deus,  is  applied  by  the  earlier  Fa- 
thers to  the  Logos,  or  Son,  or  Christ,  whether  we  are  to  consider  it 
as  an  appellative,  or  as  to  be  referred  through  the  Logos  to  the  Su- 
preme Being,  with  whom  the  Logos  is  regarded  as  partially  identified. 
I  am  aware  that  the  phrase  "  partially  identified  "  is  an  absurdity  im 
terms ;  but  the  imagination  of  which  I  speak  was  absurd,  and  such 
language  alone  can  convey  a  just  conception  of  it. 

Hence  the  translation  of  the  passages  referred  to  becomes  a  matter 
of  investigation  and  judgment,  and  often,  from  the  indistinct  and 
varying  signification  of  the  terms  in  question,  and  our  different  use 
of  the  name  "  God,"  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  explain  their  sense  in 
English  bj  a  mere  translation.  [See  before,  p.  120,  note.] 


366       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

each,  he  was  regarded  by  them  as  a  being  far  inferior 
to  God.*  The  same  inferiority  was  ascribed  by  the 
Gnostics  to  the  derivative  ^Eons  ;  by  the  later  Pla- 
tonists,  to  the  second  person  in  their  Trinity,  Nous, 
or  Intellect,  considered  in  reference  to  the  first ; 
by  the  Cabalists,  to  their  Sephiroths ;  and  by  the 
Hindoos,  to  all  their  hypostatized  attributes.  As 
respects  the  Logos,  the  imagination  of  a  person  pre- 
dominating over  that  of  an  attribute,  and  this  per- 
son being  considered  as  far  inferior  to  God,  the  way 
was  opened  for  the  Arian  doctrine,  which,  dropping 
the  idea  of  an  attribute,  and  rejecting  the  belief 
that  the  Logos  was  an  emanation  from  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Divinity,  regarded  him  only  as  a  per- 
son, and  reduced  him  to  the  rank  of  created  beings. 
But  this  produced  a  reaction  on  the  part  of  their 
Catholic  opponents,  who  in  consequence  raised  the 

*  [Thus  Tertullian  says :  "  The  Father  is  the  whole  substance ;  the 
Son,  a  derivation  from  the  whole,  and  a  portion  of  it ;  as  he  himself 
declares,  For  the  Father  is  greater  than  /."  —  "  Pater  tota  substantia 
est ;  Filius  vero  derivatio  totius  et  portio ;  sicut  ipse  profitetur,  Quia 
Pater  major  me  est"  (Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  9  ;  comp.  c.  26,  and  Apo- 
loget.  c.  21.)  Professor  Stuart  translates  the  first  part  of  the  sentence 
here  quoted  as  follows :  "  The  Father  is  the  whole  substance ;  the 
Son,  the  derivation  and  apportionment  of  the  whole"  1  (Biblical  Reposi- 
tory for  April  1835,  p.  351,  note.) 

So  Lactantius,  speaking  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  to  whom  he 
attributes  "  one  mind,  one  spirit,  one  substance,"  goes  on  to  remark 
"  But  the  one  [the  Father]  is,  as  it  were,  an  exuberant  fountain  ;  the 
other,  as  a  stream  flowing  from  it ;  the  one  is  like  the  sun  ;  the  other, 
like  a  ray  proceeding  from  the  sun ;  and  since  he  is  faithful  to  the 
Supreme  Father  and  dear  to  him,  he  is  not  separated  from  him,  just 
as  the  stream  is  not  separated  from  the  fountain,  nor  the  ray  from  the 
sun."  (Institut.  Lib.  IV.  c.  29.) 

"  The  Son,"  says  Origen,  "is  in  no  respect  to  be  compared  with 
the  Father."  (Comm.  in  Joan.,  Tom.  xiii.  c.  25.  Opp.  IV.  235.)] 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.      367 

Logos  or  Son  to  what  they  called  an  equality  with 
God,  or  the  Father,  though  they  considered  it  as  a 
derived  and  subordinate  equality. 

THE  illustrations  which  I  have  given  are  far 
from  presenting  a  full  view  of  the  confusion  and 
incoherence  of  thought  that  prevailed  among  the 
Catholic  Fathers.  But  they  are,  perhaps,  sufficient 
to  establish  the  fact,  that  the  Logos  was  regarded 
by  the  Fathers  both  as  an  attribute  of  God  and  a 
distinct  person ;  corresponding  to  a  mode  of  con- 
ception, or  rather  an  imagination,  that  has  spread 
widely  through  different  systems  of  theology; — an 
imagination  so  incongruous,  that  those  who  have 
treated  of  the  history  of  opinions  seem  often  to 
have  recoiled  from  the  notice  of  it,  or  shrunk  from 
acknowledging  its  existence.  The  words  in  which 
it  is  expressed,  conveying  in  fact  no  meaning,  are 
apt  to  pass  over  the  mind  of  a  modern  reader 
without  leaving  the  impression  that  what  was 
considered  as  a  very  important  meaning  was  once 
attached  to  them.  The  different  aspect  which  it 
gives  to  the  theological  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
from  what  that  doctrine  has  assumed  in  modern 
times,  may  alone  perhaps  sufficiently  account  for 
the  absence  of  all  mention  of  it  in  the  writings 
of  most  of  those  who  have  adverted  to  the  opin- 
ions of  the  Christian  Fathers  respecting  the  Logos. 
That  the  conception  of  the  same  being  as  an  at- 
tribute and  a  person  was  an  object  of  what  may 
strictly  be  called  belief,  is  not  to  be  maintained; 
for  we  cannot,  properly  speaking,  believe  a  mani- 


368      OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

fest  contradiction.  But  the  case  was  the  same 
with  this  as  with  many  other  doctrines  that  have 
been  zealously  maintained.  One  part  of  it  was 
believed  at  one  time,  and  another  at  another.  It 
was  assented  to  successively,'  not  simultaneously. 
When,  of  the  two  contrary  propositions  embraced 
in  the  conception,  one  rose  upon  the  mind,  the  other 
set.  In  speaking  of  such  doctrines  as  being  be- 
lieved, we  intend,  at  most,  what  may  be  called  an 
alternating  belief,  ever  vibrating  between  two  oppo- 
site opinions,  and  attaching  itself,  as  it  is  repelled 
or  attracted,  first  to  the  one  and  then  to  the  other. 

WE  will  now  pass  to  another  conception  con- 
cerning the  Logos.  In  the  creation  of  the  uni- 
verse, God  was  conceived  of  as  having  first  mani- 
fested himself.  But  it  was  by  his  Disposing  Power, 
his  Logos,  that  the  universe  was  created.  By  the 
same  Power,  as  his  vicegerent,  God  was  regarded 
as  governing  all  things.  It  was,  then,  in  and  by 
his  Logos,  that  God  was  manifested.  Hence  the 
Logos,  considered  as  a  person,  the  agent  in  the 
creation  and  government  of  the  universe,  came 
to  be  regarded  as  an  hypostatized  manifestation  of 
God.  Thus,  also,  the  Gnostics  conceived  of  their 
^Eons  as  hypostatized  manifestations  of  God.  I 
am  aware  that  I  use  a  term  without  meaning  ;  but 
there  is  no  other  which  will  better  convey  a  notion 
of  the  unformed  imaginations  that  once  prevailed 
upon  this  subject.* 

*  See  the  ingenious  and  agreeable  work  of  Souverain,  Le  Platonisme 
devoile,  in  which,  however,  the  view  of  the  author  is  too  limited. 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.      369 

"  The  Logos,"  says  Clement  of  Alexandria,  "  is 
the  face  of  God,  by  which  he  is  illustrated  and 
made  known."*  The  Gnostics,  with  the  same 
meaning,  called  their  ^Eon,  "  Intellect,"  the  face 
of  God.f  To  the  same  conception  of  the  Logos, 
as  the  manifestation  of  God,  must  be  referred 
those  numerous  passages  in  which  he  is  spoken 
of  as  the  "  name  of  God,"  the  "  image  of  God," 
the  "  irradiation  "  (aTravyaa-jjia)  of  God,  the  "  vis- 
ion "  (ipaaris)  of  God,  the  "  visible  god,"  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  Invisible,  and  as  "the  uttered 
Logos,"  or  Discourse  of  God. 

THIS  last-mentioned  conception  of  the  "  uttered 
Logos  "  appears  particularly  in  the  writings  of  the 
Christian  Fathers,  and  deserves  further  notice. 
The  term  "  Logos,"  it  will  be  recollected,  in  one 
of  its  primary  significations  denotes  reason,  or  that 
power  by  which  the  mind  arranges  its  ideas  in 
their  proper  relations  to  each  other.  But  when 
thus  arranged,  they  may  be  communicated  in 
words ;  and  to  ideas  thus  uttered  the  term  "  Lo- 
gos "  was  also  applied,  being  in  this  sense  equiva- 
lent in  signification  to  "  discourse."  In  the  present 
state  of  our  language,  we  have  no  term  which  an- 
swers to  "  Logos "  in  this  double  meaning.  But 
in  the  old  and  now  obsolete  use  of  the  word  "  dis- 
course "  we  find  the  same  singular  union  of  the 
two  principal  senses  of  Logos ;  that  word  having 

*  Puedagog.  Lib.  I.  c.  7.  p.  132. 

t  Doctrina  Orient  $  10.     [In  Potter's  edition  of  Clement  of  Alex 
Rndria,  p.  970.] 


J370  OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS. 

been  formerly  employed,  not  merely  in  its  present 
signification,  but  to  denote  the  faculty  of  reason. 
"  The  act  of  the  mind,"  says  Glanvili,  "  which  con- 
nects propositions  and  deduceth  conclusions  from 
them,  the  schools  call  Discourse,  and  we  shall  not 
miscall  it  if  we  name  it  Reason." 

To  the  Catholic  Fathers,  the  double  meaning  of 
the  word  u  Logos  "  afforded  a  favorite  illustration 
of  the  going  forth  of  the  Divine  Reason  to  the 
work  of  creation.  Considered  as  previously  exist- 
ing with  God,  it  was  described  as  "  the  Logos 
within  the  mind  of  God,"  "  the  internal  Logos,"* 
analogous  to  reason,  or  thought,  in  man  ;  consid- 
ered as  the  instrument  of  God  in  the  work  of  crea- 
tion, it  was  spoken  of  as  "the  uttered  Logos,"  f 
analogous  to  words  uttered  by  man. 

The  Latin  Fathers,  having  no  word  in  their  own 
language  which,  like  Logos  in  the  Greek,  embraced 
the  two  significations  of  Reason  and  Discourse, 
were  embarrassed  in  their  translation  of  it;  and 
hesitated  between  Ratio,  Reason  ;  Sermo,  Dis- 
course; and  Verbum,  Word.  The  first  was  the 
proper  term4  but  usage,  from  some  cause  which 
we  cannot  discover,  at  last  settled  upon  the  term 


*  Aoyos  evdiddfTos-  t  Aoyos  ir 

J  "  Rationem  Grseci  \6yov  dicunt,  quo  vocabulo  etiam  sermonem  ap- 
pellamus.  Ideoque  jam  in  usu  est  nostrorum  [i.  e.  Latinorum],  per 
sitnplicitatem  interpretationis,  sermonem  dicere  in  primordio  apud  Dzum 
fuisse,  cum  magis  rationem  competat  antiquiorem  haberi."  Tertullian. 
advers.  Praxeam,  c.  5.  [Compare  Lactantius  :  "  Sed  melius  Graeci 
\6yov  dicunt  quam  nos  verbum  sive  sermonem  ;  \6yos  enim  et  ser 
monem  significat  et  rationem  ;  quia  ille  est  et  vox  et  sapientia  Dei  ' 
(Institut.  Lib.  IV.  c.  9.)J 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS.       371 

"Woid";  and  this  has  in  consequence  been 
adopted,  in  the  theological  dialect  of  modern 
times,  as  the  proper  rendering  of  "  Logos,"  when 
used  concerning  the  Deity.  The  term,  however, 
is  wholly  inappropriate  and  unmeaning;  and  has 
served  to  confuse  still  further  a  subject  in  itselt 
abundantly  perplexed. 

This  recurrence  to  the  double  meaning  of  the 
word  "  Logos,"  this  conception  of  the  hypostatized 
Logos,  or  the  Son,  as  the  uttered  discourse  or  the 
word  of  the  Father,  or  God,  is  common  throughout 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  It  was  an  imagina- 
tion of  their  own,  not  derived  from  Philo,  who,  in 
speaking  of  the  Logos  of  God,  has  reference  only 
to  that  signification  of  the  term  in  which  it  an- 
swers to  "  reason."  If,  in  treating  this  subject, 
there  be  any  traces  in  his  writings  of  a  reference 
to  the  other  signification  of  the  term,  in  which  it 
answers  to  w  discourse,"  they  are,  to  say  the  least, 
few  and  doubtful.  I  think  there  are  none.*  The 


*  The  fact  has  been  remarked  by  Le  Clerc :  "  Adi  Philonem  ubi- 
cunque  Aoyou  et  Creationis  Mundi  meminit,  videbisque  de  Sermone 
nusquam  eum  cogitAsse.  sed  Rationis  potestatem  animo  praesentem 
habuisse."  Nov.  Test.  Hammond!  et  Clerici.  Ed.  2da.  Tom.  I.  p.  398, 
col.  2. 

Neander,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  History  of  the  Principal  Gnos- 
tic Sects  (Genetische  Entwickelung  der  vornchmsten  gnostischen 
Systeme,  p.  8),  says  that  "Philo,  in  common  with  the  Oriental  theo- 
logians and  the  Gnostics,  distinguishes  between  a  hidden,  incompre- 
hensible God,  retired  within  himself,  not  to  be  described  or  imagined, 
and  the  Manifestation  of  this  Divinity,  as  the  commencement  of  the 
work  of  creation,  and  of  the  development  of  life;  between  Jehovah 
(6  o5j/,  TO  oi/)  and  his  Manifestation,  or,  in  other  words,  the  aggregate 
of  all  the  Powers  hidden  within  the  being  of  God."  The  meaning  of 
36 


372       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

incongruous  junction  of  the  idea  of  an  uttered  dis- 
course or  a  word,  and  that  of  the  hypostatized  at- 
tribute of  reason,  in  the  conception  of  the  Logos, 
is  to  be  found  developed  only  in  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers. 

THE  confusion  of  ideas  produced  by  this  con- 
fusion of  the  meanings  of  the  word  "  Logos  "  may 
be  easily  imagined.  Abundant  illustrations  of  it 
may  be  found  in  most  histories  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  I  will  quote  only  one  passage,  a 
sufficient  specimen  perhaps,  which  I  find  adduced 
as  a  satisfactory  answer  to  an  Arian  objection,  by 
a  writer  once  of  some  note,  Dr.  William  Sherlock.* 

"  As  for  Christ's  receiving  commands  from  the 
Father,  though  this  relates  to  the  execution  of  his 
mediatory  office,  and  so  concerns  him  as  God  In- 
carnate, as  by  the  dispensation  of  the  Gospel  he  is 
the  minister  of  God's  will  and  pleasure,  yet  I  grant 
even  as  God  he  receives  commands  from  his  Fa- 
ther, but  it  is  no  otherwise  than  as  he  receives  his 
nature  from  him :  by  nature  he  is  the  Word,  the 

the  last  clause,  I  presume,  is  the  aggregate  display  of  all  the  Powers 
before  hidden  within  the  being  of  God.  But  this  seems  to  me  not  an 
accurate  account  of  the  opinions  of  Philo  ;  and  still  less  can  I  assent 
to  what  follows.  "  Philo  has  always  before  his  eyes  the  opposition 
between  elvai  and  Aeyeo-tfai,  the  former  denoting  the  existence  of 
God  as  retired  within  himself,  and  the  latter,  his  being  uttered,  or 
manifested."  —  "Philo  immer  vor  Augen  hat  den  Gegensatz  zwischen 
einem  e«/ai,in  sich  selbst  seyn,  und  Xeye<r$ai,  ausgesprochen,  geoflen- 
bart  werden."  I  think  it  may  be  safely  said,  that  Philo  nowhere  ap- 
plies the  word  Aeyeo-$cu  to  God  in  the  sense  supposed,  or  uses  con 
cerning  him  the  image  in  question.  • 

*  See  his  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  pp.  154, 155. 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

Wisdom,  the  Command  of  the  Father ;  his  reflex 
Image,  whereby  he  produces  all  the  designs  of  his 
own  wisdom  and  counsel  into  act.  Thus  St.  Aus- 
tin answered  the  Arian  objection,  that  Christ  was 
but  God's  instrument,  and  made  the  world  by 
God's  command.  *  Let  them  consider  with  what 
other  words  the  Father  commanded  his  only  Word. 
But  they  frame  to  themselves  an  imagination  of 
two  [persons]  near  one  another,  but  separated  by 
their  distinct  places,  one  commanding,  another 
obeying.  Nor  do  they  understand  that  the  Fa- 
ther's command  itself,  that  all  things  should  be 
made,  is  no  other  Word  of  the  Father,  but  that 
by  which  all  things  are  made';*  that  is,  the  sub- 
stantial Word,  and  Wisdom,  and  Command  of 
the  Father,  his  only-begotten  Son." 

IT  was  from  the  shapeless,  discordant,  unintel- 
ligible speculations  which  have  been  described,  ex 
tantd  colluvie  rerum,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
drew  its  origin.  These  speculations  it  is  now  diffi- 
cult to  present  under  such  an  aspect  as  may  en- 
able a  modern  reader  to  apprehend  their  character. 
But  the  doctrine  to  which  they  gave  birth  still 
subsists,  as  the  professed  faith  of  the  greater  part 
of  the  Christian  world.  And  when  we  look  back 


41  *  Cogitent  qnibns  aliis  verbis  jusserit  Pater  unico  verbo.  Formant 
enim  sibi  in  phantasmate  cordis  sui,  quasi  duos  aliquos,  etsi  juxta 
invicem,  in  suis  tamen  locis  constitutes,  unum  jubentera,  alterum 
obtemperantem.  Nee  intelligunt  ipsam  jussionem  Patris  ut  fierent 
omnia,  non  esse  nisi  verbum  Patris,  per  quod  facta  sunt  omnia.  — 
Ang  contr.  Serm.  Arianorum,  Lib.  HI." 


374       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

through  the  long  ages  of  its  reign,  and  consider  alJ 
its  relations,  and  all  its  direct  and  indirect  effects, 
we  shall  perceive  that  few  doctrines  have  produced 
more  unmixed  evil.  For  any  benefits  resulting 
from  its  belief,  it  would  be  in  vain  to  look,  except 
benefits  of  that  kind  which  the  providence  of  God 
educes  from  the  follies  and  errors  of  man. 

It  should  be  remarked,  however,  that  little  blame 
or  discredit  attaches  to  those  earlier  Fathers  by 
whom  the  doctrine  was  introduced.  They  only 
philosophized  concerning  the  Logos  after  the  fash- 
ion of  their  age.  Their  only  reproach  is,  that  they 
were  not  wiser  than  their  contemporaries.  In  pro- 
ceeding from  the  same  principles,  they  stopped  far 
short  of  the  extravagances  of  the  Gnostics.  Their 
speculations,  likewise,  till  after  the  time  of  Origen, 
-were  obviously  considered  by  them  more  as  a  mat- 
ter of  philosophy  than  of  faith.  There  is  sufficient 
evidence  that,  before  and  during  his  time,  these 
speculations  took  little  hold  on  the  minds  of  com- 
mon Christians.  "  The  great  body  of  those  who 
are  considered  as  believers,"  says  Origen,  "  know- 
ing nothing'  but  Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified,  think- 
ing that  the  Logos  made  flesh  is  the  whole  of  the 
Logos,  are  acquainted  with  Christ  only  according 
to  the  flesh."  * 

*  "Erepoi  8e  of  prjftev  eldores  ft  /A^  'lycrovv  Xpiarov  /cat  TOVTOV 
co-Tdvpcoptvov,  TOV  yfvofjLevov  (rdpKO.  \6yov  TO  Trav  vopio-avrfs  elvcu 
TOV  Xoyou,  XpiaTov  Kara  o-apxa  \iovov  yivdxrKova-i.  Totouroi/  df 
€<TTI  TO  ir\rj6os  TWV  irfTTHTTfVKevai  vofjii^ofj^vtav.  Origen.  Com- 
ment, in  Joannera.  Opp.  IV.  53. 


SECTION  XL 

CONCLUSION. 

IN  concluding  this  argument,  I  wish  to  make  a 
few  remarks  concerning  those  general  views  of  re- 
ligion that  I  have  directly  or  indirectly  expressed, 
and  which  are  usually  connected  with  the  opinions 
I  have  maintained.  In  doing  so,  I  shall  drop  the 
singular  pronoun,  and  blend  myself  with  those, 
whoever  they  may  be,  whose  sentiments  corre- 
spond with  my  own.  I  speak  in  the  name  of  no 
party ;  I  am  responsible  for  no  opinions  which  I 
do  not  express,  and  no  man  is  responsible  for  mine; 
but  it  would  be  false  modesty,  or  presumption,  to 
regard  myself  as  standing  alone. 

We,  then,  who  reject  the  whole  system  which 
among  Protestants  has  been  denominated  "  Ortho- 
doxy," as  a  system  of  the  most  pernicious  errors, 
are  charged  by  its  defenders  with  depriving  Chris- 
tianity of  all  its  value,  with  contemning  all  its 
peculiar  doctrines,  with  rejecting  all  but  its  name. 
What  is  it,  then,  that  we  believe  ?  and  what  is  it 
that  our  opponents  believe  ? 

Christianity,  WE  BELIEVE,  has  taught  men  to 
know  God,  and  has  revealed  him  as  the  Father  of 
his  creatures.  It  has  made  known  his  infinite  per- 
fections, his  providence,  and  his  moral  government. 
It  has  directed  us  to  look  up  to  Him  as  the  Being 

36* 


376  CONCLUSION. 

on  whom  we  and  all  things  are  entirely  dependent, 
and  to  look  up  to  Him  with  perfect  confidence  and 
love.  It  has  made  known  to  us  that  we  are  to  live 
for  ever;  it  has  brought  life  and  immortality  to 
light.  Man  was  a  creature  of  this  earth,  and  it 
ha«?  raised  him  to  a  far  nobler  rank,  and  taught 
him  to  regard  himself  as  an  immortal  being,  the 
child  of  God.  It  calls  the  sinner  to  reformation 
and  hope.  It  affords  to  virtue  the  highest  possible 
sanctions.  It  gives  to  sorrow  its  best,  and  often 
its  only  consolation.  It  presents  us,  in  the  life  of 
our  great  Master,  with  an  example  of  that  moral 
perfection  which  is  to  be  the  constant  object  of  our 
exertions.  It  has  established  the  truths  which  it 
teaches,  upon  evidence  the  most  satisfactory.  It 
is  a  most  glorious  display  of  the  benevolence  of 
the  Deity,  and  of  his  care  for  the  beings  of  this 
earth.  It  has  lifted  the  veil  which  separated  God 
from  his  creatures,  and  this  life  from  eternity. 

But  all  this,  it  seems,  is  NOTHING,  unless  it  also 
teach,  that  there  are  three  persons  who  constitute 
the  one  God  ;  or  at  least  that  there  is  some  three- 
fold distinction,  we  know  not  what,  in  the  Divin- 
ity ;  that  one  of  these  persons  or  distinctions  was 
united  in  a  most  incomprehensible  manner  to  the 
human  nature  of  Christ,  so  that  the  sufferings  of 
the  latter  were  the  sufferings  of  the  former ;  and 
that  it  is  only  through  these  sufferings  of  the  Son 
of  God  that  we  may  hope  for  the  mercy  of  his 
Father.  The  religion  of  joy  and  consolation  will, 
it  is  contended,  lose  its  value,  unless  it  announce 
to  us,  that  we  are  created  under  the  wrath  and 


CONCLUSION. 

curse  of  God  ;  that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  per- 
form his  will,  unless  our  moral  natures  be  created 
anew ;  and  that  this  is  a  favor  denied  to  far  the 
greater  part  of  men,  who  are  required  to  perform 
what  he  has  made  it  morally  impossible  they 
should  perform,  with  the  most  unrelenting  rigor, 
and  under  penalty  of  the  most  terrible  and  ever- 
lasting torments.  Such  doctrines  as  these  are 
represented  as  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christian- 
ity, those  from  which  it  derives  its  value  ;  and  our 
opponents  appear  to  think,  that  if  nothing  better 
was  to  be  effected  than  to  make  God  known  to 
men,  to  reveal  to  them  his  paternal  character,  to 
bring  life  and  immortality  to  light,  and  to  furnish 
the  highest  motives  to  virtue,  it  was  not  worth 
while  for  the  Deity  to  interpose  in  a  special  man- 
ner to  effect  purposes  so  unimportant. 

The  doctrines  which  we  believe  to  be  established 
by  Christianity  are  doctrines  of  inestimable  value. 
The  question  of  their  truth  is  one  which  interests 
us  most  deeply.  Our  happiness  and  our  virtue  are 
at  stake  on  the  decision.  If  they  are  not  true,  we 
are  miserable  indeed.  The  brute,  satisfied  with 
the  enjoyments  of  the  present  day,  has  a  preferable 
tenure  of  existence  to  that  of  man,  if  they  are  both 
to  perish  together.  But  if  these  doctrines  are  true, 
there  is  a  prospect  displayed  before  us  inconceiv- 
ably glorious  and  delightful.  They  are  truths 
which  it  was  worthy  of  God  to  teach.  Look 
again  at  the  doctrines  which  we  are  opposing. 
Are  these  doctrines  of  any  importance  or  value? 
Is  it  important  to  our  virtue  and  happiness,  that 


378  CONCLUSION. 

there  should  be  a  threefold  distinction  in  the  Di- 
vine Nature ;  or  that  the  mercy  of  God  which  is 
extended  toward  us  should  have  been  PURCHASED 
with  the  blood  of  his  Son  ?  Is  it  desirable  for  us 
to  be  satisfied  that  our  natures  are  so  depraved, 
that,  till  they  are  changed  by  the  act  of  God,  we 
can  do  nothing  to  please  him  ?  Examine  the 
creeds  of  what  is  called  Orthodoxy ;  and  read  the 
summary  of  obligations  which  these  creeds  teach 
us  that  we  lie  under  to  God  as  our  MAKER.  What 
obligations  would  be  due  from  his  creatures  to  a 
being  who  had  formed  them  under  his  "  displeas- 
ure and  curse,"  made  them  "bond-slaves  to  Satan," 
and  "JUSTLY  LIABLE"  —  the  absurdity  is  as  gross 
as  the  impiety — "to  all  punishments  in  this  world, 
and  in  that  which  is  to  come."  With  what  feel- 
ings might  such  creatures  JUSTLY  regard  their 
Maker  ?  What  is  the  character  which  they  would 
have  a  right  to  ascribe  to  him  ?  It  would  be 
mockery  to  ask,  if  it  be  desirable  that  this  doctrine 
should  be  true;  or  if  Christianity  would  lose  its 
value,  should  it  appear  that  it  taught  no  such  doc- 
trine. 

It  is  because  we  have  a  strong  conviction  of  the 
inestimable  importance  of  TRUE  RELIGION  to  hu- 
man virtue  and  happiness,  and  therefore  desire  to 
promote  its  influence,  that  we  wish  men  to  know 
and  believe  that  these  are  not  the  doctrines  of 
Christianity.  It  is  because  God  ought  to  be  the 
object  of  our  perfect  veneration  and  love,  that  we 
revolt  at  doctrines  which  confound  and  darken  our 
ideas  of  his  nature,  which  represent  one  person  in 


CONCLUSION.  379 

the  Deity  as  exacting,  and  another  as  submitting 
to,  the  punishment  of  our  offences ;  and  at  other 
doctrines  far  worse  than  these,  which,  if  it  were 
possible  for  them  to  have  their  full  influence  upon 
the  mind,  would  make  God  an  object  of  utter 
horror  and  detestation.  We  believe  that  the  great 
truths  of  religion  taught  by  Christianity  are  the 
foundation  of  public  and  private  happiness,  of  the 
good  order  of  well-regulated  society,  of  purity  of 
morals,  of  our  domestic  enjoyments,  of  all  that  is 
most  generous  and  most  disinterested  in  the  hu- 
man character,  of  all  those  qualities  which  endear 
man  to  man ;  that  they  make  life  cheerful,  and  rec- 
oncile us  to  death  ;  and  that  it  is  on  these  that  the 
character  must  be  formed  which  will  fit  us  for 
heaven;  —  and  it  is  therefore  that  we  wish  them 
to  be  presented  to  men  such  as  they  really  are,  free 
from  the  gross  errors  which  human  folly  and  per- 
versity have  connected  with  them, — errors  that  have 
prevented  their  reception,  and  essentially  counter- 
acted their  influence. 

Especially  at  the  present  time,  when,  through 
the  discredit  and  odium  cast  upon  Christianity  by 
the  false  systems  that  have  assumed  its  name,  its 
power  has  been  annihilated  through  a  great  part 
of  the  civilized  world,  and  it  has  come  to  be  re- 
garded by  a  very  large  portion  of  the  educated 
classes  of  society  as  an  obsolete  superstition,  the 
call  is  most  imperative  upon  those  to  whom  the 
welfare  of  their  fellow-men  is  an  object  of  concern, 
to  use  all  means  at  their  command  to  re-establish 
its  true  character.  If  they  are  indeed  engaged  in 


380  CONCLUSION. 

supporting  the  cause  of  TRUE  RELIGION  against 
irreligion  and  superstition,  then  the  hopes  of  man- 
kind are  staked  upon  their  success.  All  efforts  to 
promote  the  influence  of  Christianity  will  be  inef- 
fectual, till  its  real  character  is  understood  and 
acknowledged ;  for  of  all  the  opposition  to  which 
it  is  exposed,  that  which  substitutes  in  its  place 
any  of  those  false  systems  that  have  assumed  its 
name  is  at  the  present  day  the  most  pernicious. 
If  the  doctrines  against  which  we  contend  are 
false,  then  the  worst  enemy  of  Christianity  is  he 
who  asserts  them  to  have  been  taught  by  Christ. 

IN  concluding  this  work,  I  should  not  speak  of 
myself  personally,  were  it  not  for  the  desire  which 
every  reader  naturally  feels  to  know  the  probable 
motives  of  one  who  addresses  him  on  any  impor- 
tant topic  of  practical  interest.  Disconnected,  in 
a  great  degree,  from  the  common  pursuits  of  the 
world,  and  independent  of  any  party  or  of  any 
man's  favor,  there  is,  perhaps,  scarcely  an  individ- 
ual to  whom  it  can  be  a  matter  of  less  private  con- 
cern what  opinions  others  may  hold.  No  one  will 
suppose,  that,  if  literary  fame  were  my  object,  I 
should  have  sought  it  by  such  a  discussion  as  this 
in  which  I  have  engaged.  Even  among  those  who 
have  no  prejudices  in  favor  of  the  errors  opposed, 
much  indifference  and  much  disgust  to  the  subject 
must  be  overcome,  before  I  can  expect  this  work 
to  find  any  considerable  number  of  readers.  I 
commenced  it  not  long  after  one  of  the  severest 
deprivations  of  my  life,  the  loss  of  a  most  valued, 


CONCLUSION.  381 

and  most  justly  valued  friend,  and  have  continued 
it  with  sickness  and  death  around  me.  I  have 
been  writing,  as  it  were,  on  the  tombstones  of 
those  who  were  most  dear  to  me,  with  feelings 
of  the  character,  purposes,  and  duties  of  life  which 
my  own  death-bed  will  not  strengthen.  I  may, 
then,  claim  at  least  that  share  of  unsuspicious  at- 
tention to  which  every  one  is  entitled  who  cannot 
be  supposed  to  have  any  other  motive  in  main- 
taining his  opinions,  than  a  very  serious,  earnest, 
and  enduring  conviction  of  their  truth  and  impor^ 
tance. 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX. 

NOTE    A. 

(See  p.  251.) 

EXPLANATION  OF  JOHN  yi.  61,  62.* 

"  DOES  this  give  you  offence  ?  What,  then,  if 
you  should  see  the  Son  of  Man  ascending  where 
he  was  before  ?  " 

In  these  and  the  following  words,  Jesus  is  re- 
marking upon,  and  in  part  explaining,  what  he  hag 
before  said.  The  purport  of  the  words  is  this : 
Does  it  offend  you  that  I  speak  of  my  death  ? 
Would  vour  offence  continue.  «hould  you  see  me 
after  my  death  ascending  to  heaven  ? 

It  may  be  that  Jesus  here  referred  to  his  ascen- 
sion from  earth  and  disappearance  from  the  view 
of  his  disciples.  But  if  he  did  so,  that  miracle 
was,  I  conceive,  present  to  his  mind  only  as  a 
proof  and  visible  emblem  of  what  he  principally 
intended  in  his  words.  What  he  principally  in- 
tended was  his  return  to  God  from  whom  he  came, 
after  passing  through  his  sufferings  and  death. 

*  From  Mr.  Norton's  Notes  on  the  Gospels. 


386  APPENDIX. 

It  is  to  be  remarked,  that,  here  and  elsewhere, 
the  expressions  "  coming  from  "  and  "  descending 
from  "  heaven  or  God,  which  are  founded  on  Jew- 
ish conceptions  of  heaven  as  the  local  habitation  of 
the  Deity,  are  in  their  nature  necessarily  figurative, 
and  do  not  admit  of  being  taken  in  a  verbal  sense. 
God  is  in  no  one  place  rather  than  in  another. 
There  is  no  portion  of  space  that  may  be  desig- 
nated as  heaven  on  account  of  its  being  his  pecu- 
liar habitation.  "  To  be  in  heaven,"  or  "  to  be 
with  God,"  does  not  denote  existence  in  any  par- 
ticular place.  "  To  descend  from  heaven,"  or  "  to 
come  from  God,"  does  not  imply  previous  existence 
in  any  particular  place.  So  to  understand  such 
expressions  is  to  take  words  necessarily  figurative 
in  their  literal  meaning. 

"  Enoch  walked  with  God  "  ;  —  "  Their  cry  went 
up  to  God  " ;  —  "  The  spirit  shall  return  to  God 
who  gave  it "  ;  —  "  Draw  near  to  God  "  ;  —  "  God 
has  departed  from  me  "  ;  —  "  O  God,  be  not  far 
from  me  "  ;  —  "  God  will  hear  him  from  his  holy 
heaven"  ;  —  "  Look  flown  from  heaven,  O  Lord"  ;  — 
"  The  Lord's  throne  is  in  heaven"  ;  —  "Whom  have 
I  in  heaven  but  thee  ?  "  —  "  God  sent  me  before 
you  "  ;  —  "I  (the  Lord)  send  thee  to  the  children 

of  Israel  "  ;  —  "  Let  us  return  to  the  Lord, 

and  he  will  come  to  us."  In  these  passages,  and 
in  numberless  others  of  a  similar  kind,  we  perceive 
how  the  imperfection  of  human  conceptions  and  of 
human  language  has  led  to  the  use  of  expressions 
equally  figurative  with  those  of  "descending  from,*' 
and  "  ascending  to,"  heaven  and  God. 


NOTE    A.  387 

The  expressions  above  quoted  are  from  the  Old 
Testament,  but  they  are  such  as  are  familiarly  used 
in  popular  language  at  the  present  day.  We  do 
not  find  among  them  those  harsher  figures  and 
ruder  conceptions  which  elsewhere  are  not  uncom- 
mon in  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 

In  John's  own  writings,  and  particularly  in  his 
reports  of  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  there  is  much 
language  of  a  similar  kind.  "  There  was  a  man 
[John]  sent  from  God  "  ;  —  "  The  only  Son  who 
is  on  the  bosom  of  the  Father  " ;  —  "  Ye  will  see 
heaven  opened,  and  the  angels  of  God  ascending 
and  descending  to  the  Son  of  Man"  ;  —  "  The  Son 
of  Man  who  is  in  heaven"  ;  —  "  The  Father  has  not 
left  me  alone  "  ;  —  "I  speak  what  I  have  seen  with 
my  Father "  ;  —  "I  speak  to  the  world  what  I  have 
heard  from  Him  "  ;  — "  There  are  many  rooms  in 
my  Father's  house ;  I  am  going  that  I  may  prepare 
a  place  for  you " ;  —  "  He  who  has  seen  me  has 
seen  the  Father "  ;  — "  Whoever  loves  me  will 
obey  my  words  ;  and  my  Father  will  love  him, 
and  we  will  come  to  him,  and  make  our  abode  with 
him  "  ;  —  "I  came  from  the  Father  into  the  world  ; 
now  I  am  leaving  the  world,  and  going  to  the 
Father." 

As  the  conceptions  which  we  finite  beings  form 
of  the  Infinite  Being  must  be  inadequate  and  im- 
perfect, so  a  great  part  of  our  language  concerning 
him  is  necessarily  inadequate  and  imperfect,  and 
naturally  assumes  a  figurative  character.  Such,  of 
course,  is  particularly  the  case  with  popular  lan- 
guage. This  is  full  of  modes  of  speech  addressed 

37* 


388  APPENDIX. 

to  the  imagination  and  feelings,  but  of  a  « Afferent 
character  among  different  nations.  It  abounds 
more  with  figures,  and  becomes  more  remote  from 
literal  truth,  in  proportion  as  it  expresses,  or  is 
conformed  to,  the  conceptions  of  unphilosophical 
thinkers,  —  of  such  a  people  as  the  Jews.  A  great 
mistake  will  be  committed,  if  from  the  multitude 
of  these  figures  we  pick  out  one  made  remarkable, 
perhaps,  by  being  particularly  remote  from  our 
modes  of  expression,  and  impose  upon  it,  not  the 
literal  meaning  of  the  words,  for  this  may  be  im- 
possible, but  some  imaginary,  mystical  meaning, 
which  is  too  obscure  to  offend  us  by  presenting  an 
obvious  absurdity. 

Our  Lord,  in  the  passage  before  us,  and  where 
he  speaks  of  descending  from  heaven,  conforms  his 
language  to  the  conception  of  the  Jews,  that  heaven 
was  the  peculiar  abode  of  God.  But  we  cannot 
receive  this  conception  as  true,  and  therefore  can- 
not understand  the  words  in  their  literal  sense.* 

It  may  be  thought,  however,  that  his  declaring 
himself  to  have  descended  from  heaven  was  in- 
tended as  an  affirmation  of  his  pre-existence,  for 
that  by  "  heaven  "  is  meant  a  portion  of  space 
where  beings  of  a  higher  order  than  man  reside. 
By  "  heaven  "  I  conceive  that,  in  the  proper  sense 
of  the  word,  we  mean  that  future  state  of  blessed- 
ness on  which  the  good  will  enter  after  death,  and 
in  which,  as  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt,  those 


*  [The  remainder  of  this  note  is  from  an  imperfect  draught,  whicfr 
had  not  been  revised  by  the  author.] 


NOTE    A.  389 

who  have  been  connected  on  earth  may  be  neai 
each  other.  But  there  is  no  rational  foundation 
for  the  opinion,  that  those  beings  who  are  of  a 
higher  order  than  man  exist  within  the  limits  of 
a  certain  definite  portion  of  space  which  is  to  be 
called  heaven. 

Nor  would  our  Lord's  supposed  declaration  of 
his  having  been  a  pre-existent  spirit,  an  angel,  or 
an  archangel,  or  some  being  of  a  still  higher  order, 
have  anything  to  do  with  the  occasion  and  purpose 
of  his  discourse.  It  could  have  tended  only  to  be- 
wilder  the  minds  of  hearers  who,  without  this  new 
difficulty  put  before  them,  were  already  confounded 
by  his  actions.  The  immediate  occasion  of  the 
discourse  was  the  necessity  of  repressing  and  de- 
stroying, as  far  as  might  be,  the  worldly  passions 
and  expectations  of  the  Jews  arising  from  their 
false  notions  of  the  temporal  reign  of  the  Messiah. 
Its  purpose  was  to  direct  their  thoughts  to  the  true 
grounds  of  his  authority,  not  as  a  warrior  and 
earthly  king,  but  as  a  teacher  sent  from  God  and 
speaking  in  God's  name  ;  —  to  the  character  neces- 
sary in  his  followers,  who  were  not  to  be  bold 
partisans  of  a  temporal  prince,  but  to  do  the  works 
which  God  required  ;  —  to  the  blessings  which 
would  be  conferred  upon  them,  not  such  as  might 
be  looked  for  from  a  triumphant  leader,  but  eternal 
life  ;  —  and  to  the  means  by  which  this  blessedness 
was  to  be  procured  for  his  followers,  not  by  his 
success  as  a  conqueror,  but  by  his  sufferings  and 
bloody  death. 

Among  these  thoughts  there  could  be  no  pro- 


390  APPENDIX. 

priety  in  his  introducing  the  supposed  doctrine 
that  he  himself  was  a  pre-existent  being.  On  the 
contrary,  here,  as  in  his  other  discourses,  he  keeps 
himself  individually  out  of  view.  He  is  to  be 
obeyed,  not  because  he  is  a  being  in  his  own 
nature  far  superior  to  man,  but  because  he  is  the 
minister  of  God.  He  speaks  of  no  authority  de- 
rived from  what  he  was  in  himself,  but  of  the 
authority  conferred  on  him  by  God. 

Nor  does  it  appear  that  even  the  Jews  so  mis- 
took or  perverted  his  meaning  as  to  put  a  literal 
sense  upon  his  words.  When  he  told  them  that 
he  was  "  the  true  bread  from  heaven,"  "  the  bread 
of  life,"  "  the  bread  of  God  which  was  descending 
from  heaven  and  giving  life  to  the  world,"  it  was 
impossible  for  the  Jews  or  any  other  hearers  not  to 
recognize  that  all  these  expressions  were  figurative, 
and  especially,  that  by  "  descending  from  heaven," 
as  used  concerning  the  bread  of  God,  could  be 
meant  nothing  more  than  "  coming  from  God." 
The  turns  of  expression  here  employed  are  meta- 
phors borrowed  from  the  account  given  in  the 
Psalms  of  the  manna,  as  bread  rained  from  heaven 
(the  visible  heavens)  to  preserve  the  lives  of  the 
Israelites.  (See  Psalm  Ixxviii.  23-25.)  We  can- 
not reasonably  suppose  that  the  Jews  imagined 
our  Lord  to  affirm  that  he  had  descended  from 
the  visible  heavens  in  a  bodily  shape,  or  thought 
of  his  claiming  to  be  a  pre-existent  spirit,  coming 
from  those  abodes  of  the  blessed  which  we  call 
heaven. 


NOTE    A.  391 

As  has  already  been  remarked,  the  expressions 
"  to  come  from  God  "  and  "  to  descend  from  heav- 
en "  are  synonymous.  (See  John  iii.  2,  13,  31.) 
They  both  denote  the  appearing  among  men  as  a 
minister  of  God  miraculously  authorized  by  him. 
"  To  go  to  heaven "  and  "  to  go  to  God "  are  at 
the  present  day  perfectly  familiar  expressions,  but 
equally  figurative  with  those  on  which  we  are 
remarking.  They  mean,  to  pass  from  this  life  to 
a  higher  state  of  existence,  in  which  God  will  con- 
fer new  happiness  on  the  good. 

***** 

In  speaking  of  himself  as  having  descended  from 
heaven,  the  meaning  of  our  Lord  is  the  same  as 
when  in  this  discourse  he  repeatedly  designates 
himself  as  "  him  whom  God  has  sent"  "  I  have 
descended  from  heaven,  not  to  do  my  own  will,  but 
the  will  of  Him  who  sent  rne."  (Verse  38  ;  com- 
pare vv.  29,  39,  40,  44,  46,  57.) 

***** 

Thus  far,  in  explaining  the  metaphor  by  which 
Jesus  represents  himself  as  the  bread  descending 
from  heaven,  we  find  nothing  which  is  not  analo- 
gous to  our  own  forms  of  expression.  But  in  the 
words  particularly  under  consideration  a  figure  oc- 
curs, which,  though  it  is  used  by  writers  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  and  other  ancient  writ- 
ers, Christian  and  Jewish,  has  not  found  a  place 
among  our  modes  of  speech.  It  is  connected  with 
less  philosophical  conceptions  of  God  than  those 
which  Christianity  has  taught  us  to  entertain.  In 
the  use  of  this  figure,  events  and  persons  and  states 


392  APPENDIX. 

of  being,  which  it  is  intended  to  refer  in  the  strong- 
est manner  to  the  appointment  of  God,  and  to  rep- 
resent him  as  having  especially  predestined,  are 
spoken  of  as  having  a  proper  existence  while  yet 
existing  only  in  his  foreknowledge  and  purpose.  I 
have  elsewhere  explained  the  design  of  this  figure, 
and  given  many  examples  of  it.  See  the  notes  on 
John  xvii.  5  and  viii.  58.*  It  is  one  which  occurs 
repeatedly  in  the  language  of  our  Lord,  as  his 
language  is  reported  by  John  ;  as  when  he  says, 
"  And  now,  Father !  glorify  me  with  thyself,  giv- 
ing me  that  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the 
world  was."  "  Thou  didst  love  me  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world."  (Ch.  xvii.  5,  24.)  In  like 
manner,  his  being  and  office  being  predetermined 
by  God  before  the  world  was,  he  here  speaks  of 
himself  as  having  existed  with  God  before  his  ap- 
pearance on  earth. 

•  [See  before,  pp.  235  -  246.] 


NOTE    B. 

(See  p.  284.) 

ON  THE  EXPECTATIONS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  CON- 
CERNING  THE  VISIBLE  RETURN  OF  THEIR  MAS- 
TER TO  EARTH. 

THE  language  of  our  Saviour  respecting  his  fu- 
ture coming  was,  I  believe,  more  or  less  misunder- 
stood by  some  or  all  of  the  Apostles,  during  a  part 
or  the  whole  of  their  ministry.  They  looked  for- 
ward, with  more  or  less  confidence,  to  a  personal 
and  visible  return  of  Christ  to  earth  at  no  distant 
period.  The  first  coming  of  the  Messiah  had  been 
so  wholly  unlike  what  their  countrymen  had  uni 
versally  anticipated,  that,  when  he  spoke  of  a  future 
coming  while  the  existing  generation  was  still  liv- 
ing, they  transferred  to  this  some  of  the  expecta- 
tions which  had  been  long  entertained  respecting 
his  appearance  and  kingdom.  It  is  necessary  to 
attend  to  this  fact  in  connection  with  the  explana- 
tion which  has  been  given  of  the  language  of 
Christ.  The  evidence  of  it  may  appear  from  what 
follows. 

In  the  last  chapter  of  John's  Gospel  we  have  the 
following  narrative:*  "Peter,  turning  round,  cast 

*  Johnxxi.  20-23. 


394  APPENDIX. 

his  eyes  on  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  who 
was  in  the  company,  —  the  same  who  at  the  sup- 
per was  lying  at  the  breast  of  Jesus,  and  •  said  to 
him,  Master,  who  is  he  that  will  betray  you  ?  — 
Peter,  seeing  this  disciple,  said  to  Jesus,  Master, 
and  how  will  it  be  with  him?  Jesus  answered 
him,  If  it  be  my  will  that  he  remain  till  I  come, 
what  does  it  concern  you  ?  Be  you  my  follower. 
Hence  spread  that  report  among  the  brothers,  that 
this  disciple  was  not  to  die ;  though  Jesus  did  not 
say  to  him  that  he  would  not  die  ;  but,  If  it  be  my 
will  that  he  remain  till  I  come,  what  does  it  con- 
cern you  ?  " 

It  was  a  belief  among  the  Jews,  as  we  have  good 
reason  to  suppose,  that  the  lives  of  those  saints 
who  might  be  on  earth  when  the  Messiah  should 
appear  would  be  prolonged  through  his  reign  to 
the  termination  of  all  things.*  This  expectation,  it 
would  seem  from  the  passage  quoted,  was  now 
entertained  by  the  disciples  concerning  the  future 
coming  of  Christ. 

One  of  the  most  cherished  hopes  of  the  Jews 
was,  that  the  Messiah  would  restore  the  kingdom 
to  Israel ;  that  he  would  raise  the  nation  to  even 
far  greater  power  and  splendor  than  they  believed 
it  to  have  enjoyed  during  the  days  of  David  and 
Solomon.  Similar  expectations  were  entertained 
by  the  disciples  of  Christ  till  after  his  death.  The 
two  who  journeyed  with  him  to  Emmaus  after  his 
resurrection  said,  "  We  were  hoping  that  it  was  he 

*  See  Pocock's  Notae  Miscellanea  in  Maimon.  Portam   Mosis. 
Works,  I.  177,  178. 


NOTE    B. 

who  was  to  be  the  deliverer  of  Israel."*  The  last 
question  which  his  Apostles  proposed  to  him  was, 
"  Lord,  wilt  thou  now  restore  the  kingdom  to 
Israel  ?  "  The  false  expectation  implied  in  these 
words,  it  is  to  be  observed,  was  not  corrected  by 
our  Saviour.  He  only  answered,  "  It  is  not  for 
you  to  know  the  times  and  the  seasons  which  are 
at  the  disposal  of  the  Father  alone."  f  The  ques- 
tion of  the  Apostles  shows  that  they  had  at  the 
time  no  correct  understanding  of  his  prophecy  con- 
cerning the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  nation ;  and 
that  their  minds  still  dwelt  on  the  ancient  hopes 
of  their  countrymen. 

The  later  Jews  have  supposed,  that  at  the  com- 
ing of  the  Messiah  the  saints  who  are  dead  will  be 
raised  from  their  graves  to  partake  the  glories  of 
his  kingdom.:):  It  is  probable  that  this  is  a  tradi- 
tionary belief,  and  that  a  similar  supposition  was 
entertained  by  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ.  If 
so,  it  may  have  served  in  part  as  a  foundation  for 
the  following  striking  and  eloquent  passage,  in 
which  St.  Paul  expresses  to  the  Thessalonians  his 
expectation  of  the  near  return  of  our  Saviour  to 
earth.§ 

"  I  would  have  you  understand,  brothers,  con- 
cerning those  who  have  fallen  asleep,  that  you  may 
not  sorrow  like  other  men  who  have  no  hope.  For 

*  Luke  xxiv.  21.  t  Acts  i.  6,  7. 

I  See  Pocock's  dissertation,  "  In  quo  varise  Judseornm  de  resur- 
rectione  mortuorum  sententiffl  expendnntur,"  one  of  his  Notae  Mia- 
eellaneae  upon  the  Porta  Mosis.  Works,  I.  159,  seqq. 

t  1  Thess.  iv.  13-18. 

38 


396 


APPENDIX 


as  we  believe  that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again,  so 
also  will  God,  through  Jesus,  bring  again  with  Mm 
those  who  have  fallen  asleep.  For  this  we  say  to 
you,  brothers,  as  teachers  from  God,  that  we  who 
are  living,  we  who  are  left  till  the  coming  of  the 
Lord,*  shall  not  anticipate  those  who  have  fallen 
asleep.  For  the  Lord  himself  will  descend  from 
heaven,  with  a  summons  given  by  an  archangel 
sounding  the  trump  of  God ;  and  they  who  have 
died  in  Christ  will  arise  first.  Then  we  who  are 
living,  we  who  are  left,  shall  be  borne  up  with  them 
into  the  clouds  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air  ;  and  so 
shall  we  be  ever  with  the  Lord.  So  then  comfort 
one  another  with  these  words." 

The  Thessalonians,  it  is  evident  from  both  of  the 
Epistles  addressed  to  them,  were  looking  for  the 
second  coming  of  Christ  as  an  event  not  distant 
This  expectation  they  would  hardly  have  enter- 
tained so  strongly  as  they  appear  to  have  done, 
had  it  not  been  countenanced  by  St.  Paul,  through 
whom  they  had  just  been  converted  to  Christianity. 
Anticipating  that  our  Saviour  was  about  to  come 
in  person  to  establish  his  kingdom  and  reward  his 
followers,  they  feared,  it  seems,  that  their  friends 
who  had  died  might  not  share  in  the  glories  and 
blessings  to  be  then  enjoyed  by  those  Christians 
who  might  be  living.  It  was  the  purpose  of  the 
Apostle  to  remove  this  apprehension. 

It  is  thus  that  the  words,  rjfifls  ol  £5>vTes,  ol  irepi\fnrop.evoi 
els  rrjv  Trapovcriav  rov  xvpi'ou,  should  be  rendered.  St.  Paul  speaks 
of  those  who  are  alive,  those  who  are  left  till  the  coming  of  the  Lord, 
in  contradistinction  from  those  who  have  fallen  asleep. 


NOTE    B. 


397 


But  if  we  rightly  understand  the  passage,  the 
conceptions  of  the  Apostle  respecting  our  Lord's 
future  coming  were  erroneous.  Undoubtedly  \i  ap- 
pears that  they  were  so.  But  to  what  does  the 
error  amount  ?  Does  it  affect  any  important  doc- 
trine of  religion  ?  What  is  the  essential  fact  here 
expressed,  concerning  the  circumstances  of  which 
St.  Paul  had  fallen  into  a  mistake,  in  consequence 
of  the  previous  opinions  of  his  countrymen  ?  The 
essential  doctrine  —  all  that  can  properly  be  called 
a  truth  of  religion  —  is  this,  that,  whether  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ  live  a  longer  or  a  shorter  time  on 
earth,  their  future  happiness  is  equally  secure.  The 
dead  and  the  living  are  equally  the  care  of  God ; 
and  the  time  is  coming  when  they  will  all  meet 
together  where  their  Master  has  gone  before. 

That  St.  Paul  had  in  view  that  figurative  lan- 
guage in  which  our  Saviour  was,  as  I  believe,  sup- 
posed to  have  predicted  his  future  personal  coming, 
appears  from  the  words  immediately  following  those 
just  quoted.  The  Apostle  adopts  the  thoughts  and 
expressions  which  the  Evangelists  represent  Christ 
as  having  used. 

"  But  concerning  the  times  and  the  seasons, 
brothers,  there  is  no  need  that  I  should  write  to 
you.  For  you  yourselves  know  well,  that  the  day 
of  the  Lord  is  coming  as  a  thief  in  the  night.*  For 

*  Compare  Matthew  xxiv.  43,  44.  "But  this  you  know,  that  if 
the  master  of  a  house  is  aware  at  what  hour  a  thief  is  coming,  he  is 
awake,  and  suffers  not  his  house  to  be  broken  into.  So  then  be  you 
always  ready ;  for  in  an  hour  in  which  you  do  not  expect  him,  the 
Son  of  Man  will  come." 


398  APPENDIX. 

when  they  shall  say,  Peace  and  safety,  then  sudden 
destruction  will  come  upon  them,*  as  the  pangs  of 
a  woman  with  child ;  and  they  will  not  escape. 
But  you,  brothers,  are  not  in  darkness,  that  that 
day  should  come  upon  you  as  a  thief.  You  are 
all  children  of  the  light,  and  children  of  the  day; 
we  are  not  of  the  night  nor  of  darkness.  Let 
us  not  sleep,  then,  as  others,  but  watch  and  be 
sober."  f 

With  their  expectations  of  the  Messiah's  king- 
dom, the  Jews  had  connected  the  belief  of  the  over- 
throw and  destruction  of  his  enemies.  A  similar 
belief  we  find  expressed  by  St.  Paul  in  his  Second 
Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  (written  shortly  after 
the  First,)  in  which  he  encourages  them  with  the 
hope  that  Christ  was  coming  to  deliver  them  from 
persecution  by  the  destruction  of  their  persecutors. 

"  We  glory  in  you,  telling  the  churches  of  God 
of  your  constancy  and  faithfulness  in  all  your  per- 
secutions, and  the  afflictions  that  you  endure ; 
which  afford  a  pledge  of  that  just  judgment  of 
God,  by  which  you  will  be  declared  worthy  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  for  which  you  are  suffering. 
Since  it  will  be  just  for  God  to  make  them  suffer 
in  return  who  are  afflicting  you,  and  to  give  you 
who  are  afflicted  rest  with  us,  when  the  Lord  Jesus 
shall  be  manifested  from  heaven,  with  the  angels 
of  his  might,  in  flaming  fire,  punishing  those  who 
know  not  God,  and  those  who  refuse  obedience  to 
the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus;  who  will  suffer  the 

*  Compare  Matthew  xxiv.  37-39;  Luke  xxi.  34,  35. 
t  Compare  Matthew  xxiv.  42-51. 


NOTE    B. 

penalty  of  everlasting  destruction,  inflicted  by  the 
glorious  power  of  the  Lord  himself,  when  he  shall 
come  in  that  day  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints,  and 
honored  in  all  believers."  * 

But  the  Thessalonians,  it  appears,  nad  been 
strongly  excited  by  the  expectation  of  the  coming 
of  the  Lord.  They  were  regarding  it  as  an  event 
close  at  hand.  St.  Paul,  in  consequence,  though 
he  himself  anticipated  it  as  not  very  distant,  re- 
minds them,  in  order  to  allay  the  feverish  state  of 
feeling  in  which  they  seem  to  have  been,  that  he 
had  in  a  previous  conversation  with  them  pointed 
out  a  certain  event  by  which  it  was  to  be  preceded, 
and  which  had  not  yet  taken  place.  This  event  I 
suppose  to  have  been  the  rebellion  of  the  Jews 
against  the  Romans  ;  but  it  is  not  necessary  to 
our  present  purpose  to  enter  into  a  full  explanation 
of  the  obscure  passage  to  which  I  refer.f 

We  have  seen  that  St.  Paul,  at  the  time  when 
he  wrote  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians, 
was  looking  forward  to  a  resurrection  of  those 
Christians  who  had  died,  which  should  take  place 
at  the  coming  of  Christ ;  and  that  he  regarded 
himself  and  those  whom  he  addressed  as  individ- 
uals who  might  be  living  at  the  time  of  that  event. 
The  same  anticipations  appear  in  his  First  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.  He  says  :  — 

"  Through  the   Messiah  all  will  be  made  alive. 
But  each  in  his  proper  order ;  Christ  the  first  fruits ; 
next,  they  who  are  Christ's,  at  his  coming. 
•  •  •  •  • 

•  9  Thess.  i.  4  - 10.  t  2  Thess.  ch.  ii 

38* 


400  APPENDIX. 

"  Brothers,  I  tell  you  a  new  truth.  We  shall  not 
indeed  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed  ;  in  a 
moment,  in  the  glance  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump ; 
—  for  the  trump  will  sound,  and  the  dead  will  be 
raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be  changed."* 

St.  Paul  elsewhere  in  his  Epistles  refers,  I  think, 
to  the  expected  personal  appearance  of  his  Master ; 
as,  when  addressing  the  Corinthians,  some  of  whom 
were  disposed  to  an  unfriendly  judgment  concern- 
ing him,  he  says :  "Judge  nothing  before  the  time, 
till  the  Lord  come,  who  will  bring  to  light  what  is 
hidden  in  darkness,  and  make  manifest  the  pur- 
poses of  men's  hearts ;  and  then  every  one's  praise 
frill  be  from  God."f 

Thus  also  he  exhorts  the  Romans  to  obey  the 
precepts  he  had  given  them,  "  understanding  the 
.time  ;  for  the  hour,"  he  says,  "  has  come  for  us  to 
awake  from  sleep ;  for  now  is  our  deliverance  nearer 
than  when  we  became  believers.  The  night  is  far 
spent,  the  day  is  at  hand."  J 

To  the  Philippians  (iv.  5),  he  says,  "  The  Lord  is 
at  hand,"  apparently  in  the  same  sense  in  which  in 
the  Epistle  of  James  (v.  8)  it  is  said,  "  The  coming 
of  the  Lord  is  at  hand." 

He  tells  the  Corinthians  :  "  1  ever  thank  my  God 
for  you,  on  account  of  the  favor  of  God  bestowed 
upon  you  through  Christ  Jesus  ;  for  you  have  been 
enriched  by  him  with  all  instruction  and  all  knowl- 
edge, the  doctrine  of  Christ  having  been  firmly  es- 
tablished among  you,  so  that  you  are  poor  in  no 

•  Ch.  xv.  23,  24,  51,  52.  t  1  Cor.  iv.  5. 

J  Romans  xiii.  11,  12. 


NOTE    B.  401 

blessing,  whilst  waiting  for  the  manifestadon  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  God  also  will  preserve 
you  steadfast  to  the  end,  so  that  you  may  be  with- 
out blame  in  the  day  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."* 

To  the  Philippians  (i.  6)  he  expresses  his  confi 
deuce,  that  "  he  among  them  who  has  begun  a  good 
work  will  go  on  to  perfect  it  till  the  day  of  Jesus 
Christ." 

We  will  now  take  notice  of  a  single  passage  in 
the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John.  It  has  been  expected 
by  the  later  Jews  that  the  coming  of  the  Antichrist, 
or  of  the  Anti- Messiah,  would  precede  that  of  the 
Messiah.  The  same  notion  seems  to  have  pre- 
vailed among  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and 
to  be  referred  to  by  St.  John  in  the  following  pas- 
sage :  — 

"  Children,  it  is  the  last  hour ;  and  as  you  have 
heard  that  the  Antichrist  is  coming,  so  there  are 
now  many  antichrists,  whence  we  know  that  it  is 

the  last  hour."  f 

There  is  so  little  reason  to  suppose  that  the  Sec- 
ond Epistle  ascribed  to  St.  Peter  was  written  by 
him,  that  it  is  not  to  be  quoted  as  evidence  of  his 
opinions.  But  in  his  First  Epistle  (as  it  is  called), 
that  is,  probably,  in  the  only  writing  of  his  which 
remains,  he  says :  "  The  end  of  all  things  draws 
near.  Be  sober,  therefore,  and  watch  and  pray."  J 

"  Encourage  one  another,"  says  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  "  and  so  much  the  more, 
because  you  see  the  day  is  approaching."  § 

•  1  Cor.  i.  4-8.  t  1  John  ii.  18. 

\  Ch.  iv.  7  i  Ch.  x.  25 


402  APPENDIX. 

I  do  not  refer  to  the  Apocalypse  as  the  work  of 
St.  John,  for  I  do  not  believe  it  to  be  so.  But  as  it 
was  written  during  the  latter  part  of  the  first,  or  the 
early  part  of  the  second  century,  it  affords  evidence 
of  the  opinions  of  those  who  were  disciples  of  the 
Apostles.  I  regard  it  as  the  production  of  some 
early  Jewish  Christian,  whose  imagination  was 
highly  excited  by  the  expected  coming  of  Christ 
It  does  not,  I  think,  appear  that  he  himself  intended 
to  assume  the  character  of  the  Apostle  John,  or  that 
there  is  ground  for  charging  him  with  any  fraudu- 
lent design.  His  work,  notwithstanding  the  imper- 
fection of  its  language,  is  in  a  high  strain  of  poetry. 
The  mind  of  the  writer  was  borne  away  by  his  sub- 
ject. He  intended,  as  I  conceive,  that  his  visions 
should  be  understood  as  imaginary  only,  like  those 
of  another  work  of  about  the  same  age,  the  Shep- 
herd of  Hernias,  or,  to  take  a  more  familiar  exam- 
ple, like  those  of  Bunyan.  The  conviction  was 
strong  upon  him,  that  the  second  coming  of  Christ 
was  near  at  hand ;  and  the  object  of  his  work, 
which  in  modern  times  has  been  so  ill  understood, 
was,  I  believe,  to  describe  the  events  by  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  belief  of  his  age,  or  his  own  particu- 
lar belief,  it  was  to  be  preceded,  accompanied,  and 
followed.  In  the  very  commencement  of  his  work, 
he  professes  that  it  relates  to  events  soon  to  occur  ; 
exhorting  his  readers  to  attend  to  what  is  written, 
"  because  the  time  is  near."  His  words  are  thus 
rendered  in  the  Common  Version  :  — 

tc  The  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God 
gave  unto  him,  to  show  unto  his  servants  things 


NOTE    B.  403 

which  must  shortly  come  to  pass ;  and  he  sent  and 

signified  it  by  his  angel  to  his  servant  John 

Blessed  is  he  that  readeth,  and  they  that  hear,  the 
words  of  this  prophecy,  and  keep  those  things 
which  are  written  therein  ;  for  the  time  is  at  hand.19 

The  words,  as  thus  translated,  show,  I  think,  that 
those  expositions  of  the  book  are  erroneous,  which 
suppose  it  to  contain  a  prophecy  of  events  concern- 
ing the  Christian  Church,  extending  to  our  own 
time  and  beyond,  some  of  the  most  important  not 
having  yet  taken  place.  Whatever  the  writer  an- 
ticipated was,  as  he  believed,  shortly  to  come  to 
pass.  But  I  suppose  that  the  words  contain  a 
much  clearer  indication  of  his  subject,  and  that 
the  first  verse  should  be  thus  rendered  :  — 

"  The  Manifestation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God 
has  granted  him  to  show  forth  to  his  servants, — 
what  must  shortly  come  to  pass ;  which  he  has  sig- 
nified, sending  by  his  angel  to  his  servant  John." 

The  near  coming  of  the  Lord  is  several  times 
referred  to  in  the  work  in  express  terms.  In  the 
seventh  verse  of  the  first  chapter,  the  language 
which  our  Saviour  used  when  he  figuratively  spoke 
of  his  coming  to  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  is  quoted  by  the  writer :  "  Lo !  he  is  com- 
ing in  clouds,  and  every  eye  will  see  him,  and  they 
who  pierced  him  ;  and  all  the  tribes  of  the  land 
will  lament."  *  There  are  elsewhere  similar  refer- 
ences to  the  words  of  Christ.  And  the  book  con- 
cludes, as  it  began,  with  a  declaration,  trat  the 

*  Compare  Matthew  xxhr.  30. 


404  APPENDIX. 

events  anticipated  in  it  were  near  at  hand ;  and  an 
explicit  indication  that  the  main  event  expected 
was  the  coining  of  Christ.  "  And  the  angel  said 
to  me,  Seal  not  up  the  words  of  the  prophecy  of 

this  book ;  for  the  time  is  near Lo !  I  am 

coming  quickly  to  bring  retribution  with  me,  to 

give  to  every  man  according  to  his  works 

He  who  testifies  these  things  says,  Surely  I  am 
coming  quickly.  Amen  !  Come,  Lord  Jesus ! " 

The  principal  source  of  illustration  for  this  book 
is  to  be  found  in  the  language  and  conceptions  of 
the  later  Jews,  especially  their  conceptions  of  events 
connected  with  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  It  is 
from  the  neglect  of  this  means  of  illustration,  and 
from  the  erroneous  notions  respecting  the  character 
of  the  work  as,  properly  speaking,  prophetical,  that 
the  imaginations  of  most  modern  expositors  have 
been  so  bewildered  in  its  study.  The  coincidence 
between  many  of  the  conceptions  of  the  later  Jews, 
and  those  expressed  by  the  author  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, leaves  little  doubt  that  the  former  are  tradi- 
tionary, and  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ. 

Though  the  Second  Epistle  ascribed  to  Peter 
cannot  be  quoted  in  evidence  of  the  opinions  of 
that  Apostle,  it  affords  proof  of  a  state  of  opinion 
and  feeling  existing  among  Christians  at  some 
period  during  the  first  two  centuries.  The  writer 
says  (iii.  3  - 13)  :  "  Be  aware  of  this,  that  in  the 
last  days  scoffers  will  arise,  following  their  own 
lusts,  and  saying,  Where  is  his  promised  coming  ? 
For  since  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things  continue 
as  they  were  since  the  beginning  of  the  creation. 


NOTE    B.  405 

But  they  wilfully  forget,  that  of  old  by  the  word 
of  God  there  were  heavens,  and  an  earth  rising  out 
of  the  water,  and  surrounded  by  water,  which 
things  being  so,  the  world  then  existing  was  de- 
stroyed, being  inundated  by  water;  but  the  pres- 
ent heavens  and  the  present  earth  are  by  his  word 
reserved  for  fire,  being  kept  for  a  day  when  the 
impious  will  be  judged  and  destroyed.  Forget  not 
this  one  thing,  beloved,  that  a  day  with  the  LORD 
is  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  a 
day.  The  LORD  is  not  tardy  in  performing  his 
promise  (as  some  think  him  tardy),  but  is  patient 
toward  us,  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but 
that  all  should  attain  reformation.  But  the  day  of 
the  LORD  will  come  as  a  thief,  in  which  the  heav- 
ens will  pass  away  with  a  roaring  sound,  and  the 
elements  will  melt  with  fervent  heat,  and  the  earth 
and  all  its  works  will  be  burnt  up.  Seeing,  then, 
that  all  present  things  are  to  be  dissolved,  what 
ought  you  to  be  in  all  holy  conduct  and  pious  dis- 
positions, expecting  and  earnestly  desiring  the  com- 
ing of  the  day  of  God,  in  which  the  heavens  will 
be  dissolved  by  fire,  and  the  elements  melt  with 
fervent  heat.  But  we,  according  to  his  promise, 
expect  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  in  which 
righteousness  will  dwell." 

Though  the  author  does  not  in  this  passage  ex- 
plicitly speak  of  the  coming  of  Christ,  —  for  by  the 
title  "  LORD  "  God  is  here  intended,  —  yet  I  sup- 
pose there  is  no  controversy  that  he  connected  in 
his  imagination  the  consummation  of  all  present 
things,  which  he  describes,  with  that  evont.  It 


406  APPENDIX. 

appears,  then,  from  what  he  says,  that  there  had 
been  so  much  expectation  among  Christians  of  the 
speedy  return  of  Christ,  as  to  afford  occasion  for 
the  ridicule  of  scoffers.  The  writer,  it  seems,  con- 
ceived that  it  would  be  attended  with  the  renova- 
tion of  all  things  by  fire  ;  a  conception  which  is  not 
to  })e  confounded  with  that  of  the  consummation 
of  all  things  by  fire  at  the  termination  of  the  Mes- 
siah's reign.  The  former  seems  to  have  been  pecu- 
liar, and  borrowed,  not  from  the  notions  of  the  Jews 
concerning  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  but  from 
Gentile  philosophy,  particularly  the  Stoic.  There 
is  nothing  answering  to  it  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament,  nor,  I  think,  in  the  Jewish  traditions. 
It  is  quite  different  from  the  notions  entertained  by 
the  earliest  Christian  Fathers,  which  correspond  to 
those  held  by  the  Jews,  and  expressed  in  the  Apoc- 
alypse; though  they  comprised  much  which  had 
nowhere  been  taught  by  any  Apostle.  The  earlier 
Fathers  believed,  to  quote  the  description  of  Justin 
Martyr,  who  appeals  to  the  Apocalypse  as  his  au- 
thority, that  Jerusalem  was  to  be  rebuilt,  adorned, 
and  enlarged ;  that  there  was  to  be  a  resurrection, 
in  which  the  followers  of  Christ  who  were  dead, 
together  with  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  and  other 
pious  Jews,  were  to  return  to  life ;  that  these,  with 
the  body  of  Christians,  were  to  inhabit  that  city 
with  Christ,  rejoicing,  for  a  thousand  years,  at  the 
end  of  which  would  follow  the  general  resurrection 
and  judgment  of  all.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Millennium,  of  the  visible  reign  of  Christ  in  person 
upon  earth  ;  a  doctrine  which  the  earlier  Christians 


NOTE    B.  407 

would  be  disposed  to  receive  the  more  eagerly  in 
consequence  of  the  oppression,  persecution,  and 
deprivation  they  were  suffering.  It  was,  however, 
rejected  and  opposed  by  Origen.  When  Chris- 
tianity became  the  religion  of  the  state,  and  worldly 
prosperity  shone  on  its  professors,  the  doctrine  grad- 
ually faded  out  of  notice  ;  but  it  has  existed  to  our 
own  age,  transmitted  or  revived,  being  held  at  dif- 
ferent periods  by  some  one  or  other  more  enthu- 
siastic sect,  in  connection  with  the  belief  that  the 
expected  kingdom  of  Christ  is  at  hand. 

We  will  now  confine  our  attention  to  the  opin- 
ions of  the  Apostles,  which  are  to  be  carefully  dis- 
tinguished from  all  the  additions  made  to  them  by 
others.  I  have  quoted  the  writings  of  different 
Apostles.  Probably  there  were  differences  of  opin- 
ion among  them  concerning  the  circumstances 
which  would  attend  the  coming  of  our  Lord  ;  but 
they  all  appear  to  have  expected  his  personal  and 
visible  return  to  earth  as  an  event  not  distant ;  and 
to  have  believed  that  he  would  come  to  exercise 
judgment,  to  reward  his  faithful  followers,  to  pun- 
ish the  disobedient,  and  to  destroy  his  foes.  St. 
Paul,  likewise,  expected  that  "  the  dead  who  were 
Christ's  "  would  be  raised  at  his  coming.  He  fur- 
ther tells  the  Thessalonians,  that  the  followers  of 
Christ  then  living  would  be  borne  up  in  the  air  to 
meet  the  Lord  and  continue  ever  with  him ;  — 
words  which  imply,  that  he  believed  that  the  end 
of  all  present  things  was  to  be  connected  with  the 
coming  of  Christ.  To  the  Corinthians,  after  speak- 
ing of  the  resurrection  of  the  followers  of  Christ  at 

39 


408  APPENDIX. 

his  coming,  he  says :  "  Then  will  be  the  end,  when 
he  will  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the 
Father ;  after  destroying  all  dominion  and  all  au- 
thority and  power.  For  he  must  reign  till  He  has 
put  all  his  enemies  under  his  feet.  The  last  enemy, 

Death,   shall    be   destroyed And   when    all 

things  are  put  under  him,  then  will  the  Son  him- 
self be  subject  to  .Him  who  put  all  things  under 
him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all."*  We  are  like- 
wise led  to  the  conclusion  that  St.  Paul  connected 
the  end  of  the  world  with  the  coming  of  Christ,  by 
the  strong  language  that  he  uses  concerning  the 
general  judgment  of  men,  which  was  then  to  take 
place.  Thus  he  says  to  Timothy  :  "  I  charge  thee 
before  God,  and  before  Jesus  Christ,  who  will 
judge  the  living  and  the  dead  when  he  shall  appear 
in  his  kingdom  ";f  and  the  conception,  that  we 
must  "all  appear  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ 
Ao  receive  according  to  what  we  have  done  in  the 
<>dy,  either  good  or  evil,"  is  one  which  he  repeat- 
v-dy  expresses.J  That  he  looked  for  the  end  of  the 
urld  as  following  the  coming  of  Christ,  may  be 
^nferred  also  from  his  describing  those  who  should 
then  rise  as  passing  from  mortality  to  immortality, 
and  as  clothed  with  spiritual  bodies.  "  Flesh  and 
blood,"  he  says,  "cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God."  §  St.  Peter  and  St.  John  likewise  speak  of 
"  its  being  the  last  time  "  ;  and  of  "  the  end  of  all 
hings  being  at  hand."  It  is  to  be  particularly  ob- 

1  Cor.  xv.  24-28.  t  2  Timothy  ir.  1. 

t  Romans  xiv.  10 ;  2  Corinthians  v.  10. 
I  1  Corinthians  XT.  50. 


NOTE    B. 


409 


served,  that  there  is  no  intimation  given  by  any 
Apostle  of  a  millennial  reign  of  Christ ;  a  circum- 
stance which,  among  many  others,  serves  to  show 
that  the  Apocalypse,  in  which  this  doctrine  is 
clearly  taught,  was  not  the  work  of  St.  John. 

SUCH,  then,  appear  to  have  been  the  opinions  of 
the  Apostles  respecting  the  second  coming  of  their 
Master.  I  have  been  led  to  speak  of  this  subject, 
so  important  in  many  of  its  relations,  from  its  spe- 
cial bearing  upon  the  explanations  which  I  have 
given  of  the  language  of  our  Saviour.  I  have  en- 
deavored to  show,  that  his  language  concerning  his 
future  coming,  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom 
on  earth,  and  his  passing  judgment  upon  all  men, 
presents  no  difficulty  when  compared  with  subse- 
quent events ;  that  his  expressions  are  figurative, 
and  that  their  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  analo- 
gous metaphors,  the  meaning  of  which  is  obvious  ; 
and  that,  however  bold  some  of  them  may  appear, 
they  do  not  transcend  the  genius  of  the  Oriental 
style.  But  we  find,  on  the  other  hand,  that  his 
Apostles,  through  causes  which  I  have  endeavored 
partly  to  explain,  instead  of  a  figurative  coming, 
expected  a  literal  return  of  their  Master  to  earth, 
before  the  generation  then  living  should  pass  away; 
that,  instead  of  a  figurative  judgment,  they  believed 
that  on  his  return  he  would  judge  all  men  in  per- 
son ;  and  that,  in  connection  with  these  events, 
they  anticipated  the  end  of  all  things.  These  ex- 
pectations were  erroneous  ;  and  before  the  explana- 
tion which  has  been  given  of  the  words  of  Christ 


410  APPENDIX. 

can  be  fully  admitted,  this  error  must  be  under- 
stood. We  must  not  read  over  the  passages  in 
which  it  is  expressed  with  a  confused  misapprehen- 
sion of  their  sense,  as  if  they  related  to  events  still 
future,  and  were  at  the  same  time  coincident  in 
meaning  with  the  language  of  Christ. 

NOTHING  more  need  be  said  to  illustrate  the  dif- 
ference which  I  suppose  to  exist  between  his  mean- 
ing and  the  conceptions  of  the  Apostles  respecting 
his  future  coming.  But  there  are  questions  and 
considerations  suggested  by  the  facts  brought  for- 
ward, which,  though  not  immediately  connected 
with  the  subject  of  this  work,  are  too  important 
to  be  passed  over  in  silence.  Why,  it  may  be 
asked,  did  not  our  Saviour  prevent  his  Apostles 
from  falling  into  the  error  we  have  remarked  ? 
The  answer  to  this  question  will  open  to  us  views 
of  much  importance  to  be  attended  to  in  the  study 
of  the  New  Testament. 

On  many  subjects  our  Saviour  refrained  from 
entering  into  a  full  explanation,  and  correcting  the 
errors  of  his  hearers.  They  were  errors  not  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  essential  truths  of  re- 
ligion. The  course  of  events,  the  advance  of  hu- 
man reason,  and  the  progress  of  knowledge,  would 
afford  sufficient  correctives  ;  and  he  was  not  sent 
to  deliver  men  from  all  false  opinions,  and  to  fur- 
nish a  digest  of  truth  upon  every  subject.  An 
error  not  important  may  be  so  interwoven  with  an 
essential  truth,  that  it  can  be  separated  only  by  the 
hazardous  experiment  of  unravelling  the  whole  web. 


NOTE    B.  413 

A  misapprehension  of  facts  may  be  strongly  asso- 
ciated with  feeling;?  practically  true.  Their  roots 
may  be  so  twisted  round  it,  that  there  is  danger  of 
eradicating  them  in  the  attempt  to  remove  it.  Nor 
does  the  communication  of  truth  depend  upon  the 
instructor  alone.  No  instructor  can  give  a  child 
the  knowledge  of  a  man.  He  to  whom  God  had 
opened  the  treasure-house  of  wisdom  could  not 
make  all  his  most  willing  hearers  as  wise  as  him- 
self. Putting  out  of  view  all  miraculous  influence 
upon  the  mind,  men  can  be  advanced  in  intellectual 
improvement  only  in  proportion  to  the  progress 
which  they  have  already  made.  A  truth,  how- 
ever clearly  presented,  must  be  in  some  accordance 
with  the  previous  habits  of  thinking  of  him  to 
whom  it  is  addressed,  in  order  to  be  clearly  appre- 
hended ;  and  a  truth  ill  apprehended,  detached 
from  the  relations  in  which  it  ought  to  be  viewed, 
may  be  more  mischievous  than  the  error  which  it 
is  intended  to  supplant.  Men  must  be  taught,  as 
our  Saviour  taught  them,  as  "  they  are  able  to  bear 
it."  To  have  enabled  his  hearers  fully  to  compre- 
hend all  facts  and  truths  connected  with  Chris- 
tianity, and  to  have  freed  their  minds  from  all  false 
conceptions  concerning  the  Messiah  and  his  king- 
dom, and  every  topic  which  has,  or  may  be  sup- 
posed to  have,  a  bearing  upon  religion,  could  have 
been  effected  only  by  a  miracle  which  would  almost 
have  changed  their  identity.  Supposing  that  in  the 
particular  case  of  the  Apostles  such  a  miracle  had 
been  wrought,  still  their  hearers  would  have  been 
as  dull  of  apprehension  as  were  those  whom  Christ 

39  « 


412  APPENDIX. 

taught.  Had  the  Apostles  been  placed  in  all  re- 
spects on  an  equality  with  their  Master ;  had  they 
been  guided  throughout  by  the  same  perfect  judg- 
ment, which  implies  not  merely  the  highest  intel- 
lectual, but  the  highest  moral  excellence ;  had  they 
each  been  qualified  to  supply  his  place,  and  entitled 
to  every  name  of  honor  which  belongs  to  him,  — 
their  disciples  would  have  held  the  same  place  which 
they  themselves  now  do  as  disciples  of  Christ.  They 
must  have  taught  their  followers  as  their  Master 
had  taught  them ;  and  whenever  this  miraculous 
regeneration  of  intellect  ceased,  and  men's  minds 
were  left  to  their  natural  action,  and  the  cur- 
rent of  their  opinions  was  suffered  to  pursue  its 
ordinary  course,  —  whenever  infallibility  was  no 
longer  secured  by  the  power  of  God,  —  errors  of 
some  kind  would  necessarily  mingle  with  men's 
religious  faith.  As  regards  the  Apostles,  we  be- 
lieve that  their  minds  were  enlightened  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  by  direct  miraculous  communi- 
cations from  him,  in  regard  to  the  essential  truths 
of  Christianity.  But  we  have  no  warrant  to  be- 
lieve, nor  is  there  any  probable  argument  to 
show,  that  this  divine  illumination  was  further 
extended. 

Our  Saviour  came  to  teach  the  essential  truths 
of  religion.  Even  these  truths  were  but  imper- 
fectly apprehended  by  most  of  those  who  heard 
him,  and,  I  may  add,  have  been  but  imperfectly 
apprehended  by  most  of  those  who,  from  his  time 
to  our  own,  have  professed  themselves  to  be  his 
disciples.  When  we  find,  that  on  the  last  night 


NOTE 

01  his  ministry  one  of  his 
14  Master,  show  us  the  Father, 
satisfied/'*  it  may  be  perceived  that  there  were 
difficulties  enough  to  be  overcome  in  communi- 
cating to  them  a  full  apprehension  of  those  ele- 
mentar)  truths.  Their  attention  was  not  to  be 
withdrawn  from  them  by  discussions,  doubts,  ques- 
tions, and  explanations  respecting  subjects  of  com- 
paratively little  importance,  concerning  which  they 
might  have  adopted  the  errors  of  their  age.  When, 
referring  to  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of 
souls,  a  doctrine  at  that  time  generally  connected 
with  the  belief  of  their  immortality,  they  asked, 
"  Master,  who  sinned,  this  man  or  his  parents,  that 
he  was  born  blind  ?  "  f  our  Saviour  in  his  answer 
did  not  explain  to  them  the  mistake  implied  in 
those  words.  When,  under  the  belief  common  to 
their  countrymen,  that  the  sufferings  of  this  life 
were  punishments  from  God,  certain  individuals 
came  to  tell  him  of  the  "  Galilaeans,  whose  blood 
Pilate  had  mingled  with  their  sacrifices,"  J  there 
was  nothing  in  his  reply  to  correct  their  false  con- 
ceptions. The  relative  importance  of  different  doc- 
trines, the  wide  separation  which  divides  what  is 
essential  in  true  religion  from  all  the  accessory 
notions  that  men  have  made  a  part  of  their  re- 
ligion, is  very  little  understood  at  the  present  day, 
and  was  not  better  understood  by  the  Jews  eigh- 
teen centuries  ago.  In  most  minds,  those  opinions 
which  they  believe  or  fancy  to  have  anything  of  a 

'  John  xit  8,  f  John  ix.  2.  J  Luke  xiii.  1 


414  APPENDIX. 

religious  character  are  disposed  without  regard  to 
perspective.  They  all  stand  forward  equal  in  mag- 
nitude. It  is  one  of  the  most  striking  character- 
istics of  the  teaching  of  Christ,  that  the  distinction 
between  the  essential  truths  of  religion  and  all 
other  doctrines,  true  or  false,  was  never  confounded 
by  him.  He  fixed  the  attention  of  his  hearers  only 
upon  what  it  most  concerned  them  to  know  as  re- 
ligious beings,  that  is,  as  creatures  of  God  and 
heirs  of  immortality.  In  order  to  effect  this  pur- 
pose, it  was  necessary  for  him  to  confine  his  teach- 
ing to  the  essential  truths  of  religion.  If  he  had 
done  otherwise,  if  he  had  labored  to  correct  the 
errors  of  his  hearers  upon  subjects  of  minor  impor- 
tance, and  to  place  the  truth  distinctly  before  them 
in  all  those  new  relations  which  it  might  present, 
his  hearers  would  unavoidably  have  confounded 
the  doctrines  thus  taught  them  upon  divine  au- 
thority with  those  essential  principles  which  alone 
it  was  the  purpose  of  God  to  announce.  Their 
imaginations  and  feelings  might  perhaps  have  been 
more  occupied  about  what  it  was  of  little  conse- 
quence for  them  to  know,  than  about  truths  which 
it  was  of  the  highest  concern  that  they  should  un- 
derstand themselves,  and  be  qualified  to  teach  to 
others. 

But  there  is  another  aspect  under  which  the  sub- 
ject is  to  be  viewed.  We  must  consider,  not  mere- 
ly the  disciples,  but  the  enemies  of  Christ ;  we  must 
regard  the  character  of  the  ignorant,  prejudiced,  un- 
stable multitudes  whom  he  addressed,  and  whom 
his  Apostles  were  to  address ;  and  we  must  rr,col- 


NOTE    B.  41  ^ 

lect,  that  whatever  he  taught  to  his  Apostles  was 
in  effect  taught  to  all ;  that  it  was  their  proper 
office  to  publish  his  whole  doctrine.  Now  in  com- 
municating to  men  the  essential  truths  of  religion, 
and  in  confining  his  attention  to  these  alone,  he 
had  to  encounter  prejudices  and  passions  the  most 
obstinate  and  violent.  Superstition,  fanaticism, 
and  hypocrisy,  all  that  is  in  most  direct  opposition 
to  the  love  of  God  and  man,  constituted  the  re- 
ligion of  a  great  part  of  the  Jews.  It  was  vital  to 
the  selfish  purposes  and  to  the  authority  of  those 
who  were  leaders  among  the  people,  that  the  errors 
which  prevailed  should  retain  their  power  over 
men's  minds.  The  bigotry  of  false  religion  was  at 
the  same  time  inflamed  by  national  pride.  This 
opposition  Christ  had  to  encounter,  and  hence  he 
was  assailed  throughout  his  ministry  with  continual 
cavil,  reproach,  and  persecution  ;  and  he  saw  from 
its  commencement,  that  he  should  soon  become 
their  victim.  The  circumstances  in  which  he  was 
placed  required  the  utmost  circumspection,  judg- 
ment, and  self-command.  No  new  prejudice  was 
to  be  needlessly  excited.  No  unnecessary  occasion 
of  cavil  was  to  be  presented.  No  opportunity  for 
perverting  or  contradicting  his  words  was  to  be 
given,  that  could  be  avoided  consistently  with  the 
purpose  of  his  mission.  It  was  not  for  him  to 
waste  the  numbered  days  of  his  ministry,  in  which 
so  much  was  to  be  accomplished,  to  perplex  his 
hearers,  and  to  exasperate  his  foes,  by  entering  into 
controversy  or  explanations  respecting  topics  of 
minor  concern.  The  hold  which  a  prejudice  has 


416  A  <»PENv  IX. 

upon  the  mind  is  ofte  out  of  all  proportion  to  any 
show  of  proof  that  may  be  brought  in  its  support. 
Questions,  the  discussion  of  which  we  should  now 
regard  only  as  an  object  of  ridicule,  have  in  other 
ages  been  the  occasion  of  rancorous  contention. 
In  the  fourteenth  century,  a  dispute  raged  in  the 
Greek  empire  concerning  the  question,  whether 
the  light  which  shone  round  Christ  at  his  trans- 
figuration was  created  or  uncreated.  Four  coun- 
cils were  assembled,  and  those  who  affirmed  it  to 
be  created,  and  held  the  consequences  which  were 
supposed  to  be  connected  with  this  doctrine,  were 
anathematized  as  worse  than  all  other  heretics.* 
If  a  new  teacher  of  TRUE  RELIGION  had  been  sent 
from  God  to  the  men  of  that  age,  we  may  easily 
comprehend,  that  few  mistakes  would  have  tended 
more  to  render  his  mission  fruitless,  than  for  him 
to  have  entered  into  any  explanation,  or  to  have 
passed  any  judgment,  upon  this  controversy.  In 
the  defence  of  what  we  now  consider  as  gross 
errors,  a  blind  and  deaf  bigotry  has  been  displayed, 
the  strength  of  which  it  is  hard  to  estimate  since 
the  delusion  has  passed  away.  It  is  not  yet  two 
centuries  since  the  denial  of  the  then  common 
belief  of  witchcraft  was  regarded  as  implying  the 
denial  of  the  agency  of  any  spiritual  being,  of  the 
existence  of  the  invisible  world,  and  consequently 

*  See  Petavii  Dogmata  Theologica.  De  Deo  Deique  Proprie- 
tatibus,  Lib.  I.  c.  12.  Compare  Mosheim's  Institutes  of  Ecclesiasti- 
cal History,  Cent.  XIV.  P.  II.  Ch.  V.  §§  1,  2;  Gieseler,  Bd.  II. 
Abth.  111.  $  129,  2te  Aufl.,  or  Vol.  III.  §  127,  Cunningham's  Trans- 
lation.] 


NOTE    B.  417 

as  virtual  atheism.*  In  the  time  of  Christ,  and  for 
a  long  period  before,  the  doctrine  of  daemoniacal 
possession  prevailed  among  the  Jews,  and  many 
diseases  were  ascribed  to  this  cause.  Our  Saviour 
never  taught  that  this  was  a  false  doctrine.  He 
occasionally  used  language  conformed  to  the  con- 
ceptions of  those  who  believed  it  to  be  true.  Why 
was  he  silent  on  this  subject  ?  Why  did  he  leave 
some,  if  not  all,  of  his  Apostles  in  error  concerning 
it,  as  appears  from  the  common  belief  being  ex- 
pressed in  the  first  three  Gospels,  though  not  in 
that  of  St.  John  ?  Let  us  consider,  that,  if  he 
had  taught  the  truth,  he  would  immediately  have 
been  denounced  by  his  enemies  as  an  unbeliever 
in  the  invisible  world,  as  a  Sadducee  teaching  that 
"there  was  neither  angel  nor  spirit";  —  that  the 
error  in  question  was  intimately  connected  with 
many  others,  concerning  the  existence  of  Satan, 
the  origin  of  evil,  the  rules  of  God's  government 
of  the  world,  the  mental  and  physical  constitution 
of  man,  and  the  power  of  magic  and  incanta- 
tions;—  that  it  would  have  been  idle  to  declare 


*  "For  my  part,"  says  Sir  Thomas  Browne,  "I  have  ever  be- 
lieved, and  do  now  know,  that  there  are  witches.  They  that  doubt 
of  them  do  not  only  deny  them,  but  spirits ;  and  are  obliquely  and 
of  consequence  a  sort,  not  of  infidels,  but  atheists."  (Religio  Medici, 
Part  I.)  Glanvill's  "  SADDOCISMUS  Triumphatus"  is  a  work  in  de- 
fence of  the  common  superstition,  by  one  of  the  able  men  of  his  age, 
in  which  he  represents,  as  may  be  supposed  from  the  title,  all  disbe- 
lievers in  witchcraft  as  destitute  of  religion.  A  great  part  of  Dr. 
Henry  More's  "  Antidote  to  Atheism  "  consists  of  stories  of  supposed 
supernatural  events,  apparitions,  witchcruft,  and  pretended  roiracu 
lous  operations  of  God's  providence. 


418  APPJ*KT>IX. 

himself  against  one  of  these  errors,  unless  he  had 
opposed  them  all ;  —  that  he  was  surrounded  by 
ignorant  and  prejudiced  hearers,  wholly  unaccus- 
tomed to  exercise  their  minds  upon  any  general 
truth  ;  —  and  that,  had  it  been  possible  to  instruct 
them  thoroughly  upon  any  one  of  the  subjects  I 
have  mentioned,  he  must,  in  order  to  effect  this, 
have  turned  aside  from  the  great  purpose  of  his 
ministry,  and  have  withdrawn  their  attention  from 
it.  It  would  have  been  the  labor  of  a  long  life  to 
enlighten  the  minds  of  any  considerable  number  of 
Jews  upon  topics  such  as  these. 

Let  us  consider  another  case.  The  Jews  had 
adopted  what  is  called  the  allegorical  mode  of  in- 
terpreting their  sacred  books ;  and  had  found  many 
supposed  predictions  and  types  of  their  expected 
Messiah  in  factitious  senses  which  they  ascribed  to 
particular  passages.  This  mode  of  interpretation 
was  adopted  by  some  of  the  Apostles.  We  find 
examples  of  it  as  used  by  them  in  the  Gospels  of 
both  Matthew  and  John,  and  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  One  is  surprised,  perhaps,  that  this  mis- 
take was  not  corrected  by  Christ.  Nothing  may 
seem  more  simple,  than  that  he  should  have  indi 
cated  that  this  whole  system  of  interpretation,  and 
this  method  of  proof,  so  far  as  the  supposed  proph- 
ecies were  applied  to  himself,  were  erroneous. 
But  would  you  have  had  him  at  the  same  time 
teach  the  whole  art  of  interpretation  ?  If  he  had 
not  done  so,  errors  as  great  might  have  been  com- 
mitted from  some  other  cause.  If  he  had  corrected 
some  wrong  conceptions  only,  and  left  others,  the 


NOTE    B.  419 

latter  from  that  very  circumstance  would  have  ac- 
quired new  authority.  But  to  have  taught  the  art 
oi  interpretation  only  would  not  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  enable  his  hearers  to  become  skilful  ex- 
positors of  the  Old  Testament ;  he  must  have 
settled  the  yet  disputed  questions  concerning  the 
age,  the  authorship,  the  authority,  and  what  has 
been  called  the  inspiration,  of  the  different  writings 
that  compose  it ;  and  whoever  has  studied  these 
subjects  with  an  unbiassed  and  inquiring  mind 
may,  I  think,  be  satisfied  that  the  truth  concerning 
them  is  such  as  no  Jew  was  prepared  to  listen  to, 
and  few  indeed  would  have  listened  to  without  as- 
tonishment and  wrath. 

But  let  us  suppose  that  he  had  attempted  only 
to  correct  the  single  error  which  consisted  in  the 
false  application  of  many  passages  to  the  Messiah : 
what  would  have  been  the  consequence?  His 
enemies  would  undoubtedly  have  contended,  that 
it  was  idle  to  suppose  him  to  be  the  Messiah.  He 
does  not  even  pretend,  they  would  have  trium- 
phantly said,  to  be  the  object  of  the  prophecies  by 
which,  according  to  all  those  learned  in  the  Law 
and  in  our  traditions,  the  Messiah  is  foretold.  Per- 
haps he  would  have  us  believe,  that  no  Messiah 
has  been  promised  ;  but  that  he  has  as  good  a 
claim  as  any  other  to  that  title.  Has  he  not  come 
from  Beelzebub,  to  teach  that  the  prophecies  are 
false  and  our  hopes  vain,  that  God  has  ceased  to 
care  for  his  people,  and  thus  to  seduce  us  from  oui 
faith  and  allegiance  ? 

40 


420  APPENDIX. 

BUT  in  connection  with  this  subject  there  is  an- 
other fact  to  be  attended  to.  In  teaching  or  en- 
forcing truth,  the  language  of  error  may  be  used  in 
order  powerfully  to  affect  the  feelings ;  because  it 
has  associations  with  it  which  no  other  language 
will  suggest.  Such  use  of  it  implies  no  assent  to 
the  error  on  which  it  is  founded.  He  who  employs 
the  epithets  "diabolical,"  or  "fiendish,"  affords  from 
that  circumstance  alone  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
he  believes  in  the  existence  of  devils  or  fiends. 
There  is  much  language  of  the  same  character. 
We  still  borrow  many  expressions  from  imaginary 
beings  of  ideal  beauty  and  grace,  from  fairies  and 
sylphs,  beings  whose  real  existence  was  once  be- 
lieved. We  have  no  reluctance  to  use  words  de- 
rived from  the  false  opinions  concerning  witchcraft, 
possession,  and  magic.  We  use  those  which  have 
been  mentioned,  and  many  terms  of  a  similar  kind, 
because  they  furnish,  or  seem  to  furnish,  expres- 
sions more  forcible  than  we  could  otherwise  com- 
mand. But  this  fact  has  been  disregarded  in  rea- 
soning from  the  language  of  Christ.  Expressions 
founded  upon  the  conceptions  of  the  Jews,  and 
used  by  him  because  no  other  modes  of  speech 
would  have  so  powerfully  affected  their  minds, 
have  been  misunderstood  as  intended  to  convey  a 
doctrine  taught  by  himself.  This  remark  is  appli- 
cable to  those  few  passages  in  his  discourses  in 
which  he  speaks,  according  to  the  belief  of  the 
Jews,  of  Satan  as  if  he  were  a  real  being,  such  as 
the  following :  "  I  saw  Satan  failing  from  heaven 
like  lightning"  ;  — "  Your  father  is  the  Devil,  and 


NOTE    B.  421 

you  are  ready  to  execute  his  evil  purposes"; — 
"  The  enemy  who  sowed  the  tares  is  the  Devil";  — 
and  particularly  to  the  figurative  and  parabolic 
narrative  in  which  he  represented  himself  as  hav- 
ing been  tempted  by  Satan.  I  say  in  which 
he  represented  himself,  for  it  is  evident  that  the 
narrative  of  the  Evangelists  could  have  been  de- 
rived from  Christ  alone.  Satan  was  regarded  by 
the  Jews  as  the  great  adversary  of  God  and  man, 
the  Tempter,  the  Accuser,  the  source  of  moral  and 
physical  evil.  No  words  could  so  forcibly  impress 
them  with  a  conception  of  the  odiousness  and  de- 
pravity of  any  act  or  character,  as  by  resembling 
it  to  him,  or  referring  it  to  him  as  its  suggester 
or  author.  They  were  familiar  with  the  imagina- 
tion of  such  a  being,  and  through  this  imagina- 
tion their  minds  were  most  powerfully  to  be  af- 
fected. The  abstract  idea  of  moral  evil,  if,  indeed, 
they  could  have  apprehended  it,  would  have  been 
to  them  a  shadowy  phantom,  compared  with  it  as 
hypostatized  and  vivified  in  its  supposed  malig- 
nant author.  Under  circumstances  in  which  it  is 
impossible  to  explain  the  whole  truth,  or  in  which 
it  is  certain  that  the  whole  truth  cannot  be  under- 
stood and  felt,  in  addressing  men  who  are  unac- 
customed to  exercise  their  understandings,  and  who 
from  childhood  have  incorporated  false  conceptions 
with  right  principles  of  action,  we  may  use  their 
errors  for  their  reformation ;  we  may  appeal  to 
their  feelings  or  their  fears  through  their  mistaken 
imaginations ;  we  may  employ  one  wrong  opinion 
to  counteract  others  more  pernicious ;  and  in  rea« 


422  APPENDIX. 

Boning,  exhortation,  or  reproof,  we  may  thus  avail 
ourselves  of  their  more  innocent  prejudices  in  oppo- 
sition to  their  passions  and  vices.  But  in  doing 
this,  we  are  precluded  from  directly  assailing  those 
prejudices  ;  though  we  may  at  the  same  time  be 
establishing  truths  which  will  effect  their  gradual 
abolition.  Such  was,  I  believe,  in  some  particu- 
lars, the  mode  of  teaching  adopted  by  Christ. 

IN  regard  to  some  of  the  errors  of  his  disciples,  it 
may  be  a  question  whether  the  plainest  language 
would  in  itself  alone  have  been  sufficient  to  remove 
them.  I  may  rather  say,  it  evidently  would  not 
have  been  sufficient.  The  very  subject  of  this  vol- 
ume shows,  if  the  opinions  maintained  in  it  be  true, 
that  the  plainest  language  has  not  been  sufficient 
to  preserve  men  from  the  grossest  errors.  Yet  the 
^vords  of  Christ  have  not  less  authority  as  recorded 
in  the  Gospels,  than  when  uttered  by  his  own  lips. 
But  we  are  not  obliged  to  reason  thus  indirectly. 
We  may  see  in  the  accounts  of  his  ministry,  how 
often  our  Saviour  was  not  understood  by  his  disci- 
ples. As  he  was  approaching  Jerusalem  for  the 
last  time,  he  called  the  Twelve  together  and  said : 
"  Lo  !  we  are  going  up  to  Jerusalem,"  and  the  Son 
of  Man  "  will  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  mocked,  and  insulted,  and  spit  upon  ; 
and  having  scourged  him,  they  will  put  him  to 
death  ;  and  on  the  third  day  he  will  return  to  life." 
No  language  can  be  more  simple  and  explicit  than 
this.  But  the  Evangelist  goes  on  to  relate,  that 
'•he  Apostles  "  understood  this  not  at  all ;  the  mean 


NOTE    B.  423 

ing  of  his  words  was  hidden  from  them,  and  they 
did  not  comprehend  what  he  said."*  How  little 
they  understood  this  and  other  declarations  ol 
Christ  may  appear  from  the  fact,  that  the  next 
event  recorded  by  the  Evangelists  is  the  application 
on  the  part  of  James  and  John  for  the  highest 
places,  under  Christ,  in  that  temporal  kingdom  on 
which  their  hopes  were  still  fixed.  The  prediction 
of  his  resurrection,  though  repeatedly  made  by  him, 
was,  we  know,  so  little  comprehended  by  them,  that 
no  hope,  and  apparently  no  thought,  of  that  event 
was  entertained  by  them  after  his  death.  It  is  not 
strange,  therefore,  that  they  expected  a  visible  re- 
turn of  our  Saviour  from  heaven,  to  establish  his 
kingdom,  though  he  himself  had  declared,  "  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  not  coming  with  any  show  that 
may  be  watched  for ;  nor  will  men  say,  Lo !  it  is 
here  ;  or,  Lo !  it  is  there  ;  for  lo !  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  within  you "  ;  and  though  in  the  clearest 
manner,  and  under  circumstances  the  most  solemn, 
he  had  affirmed, "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world." 

WE  are  apt  to  fall  into  a  great  mistake,  from 
not  distinguishing  between  the  feelings  and  con- 
ceptions, the  whole  state  of  character,  of  an  en- 
lightened Christian  at  the  present  day,  and  those 
of  the  Jews  to  whom  Christ  preached.  It  may 
seem  to  us  as  if  a  few  words  of  his  would  have 
been  sufficient  to  do  away  any  error,  however  in- 
veterate, because  we  think  their  effect  would  be 


*  Luke  xviii.  31-34. 
40* 


APPENDIX. 


such  upon  our  own  minds.  We  may  wonder  that 
those  words  were  not  uttered.  We  may  almost  be 
tempted  to  ask,  Why  was  a  teacher  from  God  so 
sparing  of  his  knowledge,  so  limited  in  his  instruc- 
tions ?  Why  did  he  not  deliver  his  Apostles  at 
least  from  all  their  mistaken  apprehensions  having 
any  connection  with  the  facts  or  truths  of  religion  ? 
How  could  he  leave  the  world  with  so  many  false 
and  pernicious  opinions  existing  around  him  in  full 
vigor,  against  which  he  had  not  declared  himself  ? 
And  why,  with  the  same  feelings,  we  might  go  on 
to  ask,  do  the  great  truths  of  religion  appear,  as 
disclosed  by  him,  in  such  naked,  monumental,  se- 
vere grandeur?  Why  do  they  stand  alone,  sepa- 
rated from  all  truths  not  essential  to  our  faith? 
Why  were  not  the  many  questions  answered,  the 
many  doubts  solved,  which  we  might  be  disposed 
to  lay  before  Christ,  or  which  his  disciples,  if  we 
imagine  them  as  inquiring  and  as  teachable  as 
ourselves,  might  have  proposed  ? 

To  inquiries  such  as  these  it  has  been  my  pur- 
pose to  afford  some  answer  in  what  has  been  sug- 
gested. As  a  teacher  from  God,  it  was  the  proper 
and  sole  office  of  Christ  to  make  known  to  men, 
on  the  authority  of  God,  the  fundamental  truths 
of  religion.  To  inculcate  these  alone  was  a  task 
which  demanded  all  his  efforts,  his  own  undivided 
attention,  and  that  of  his  most  willing  hearers. 
They  were  to  be  kept  distinct  from  all  other  truths. 
The  minds  of  men  were  not  to  be  withdrawn  from 
them  by  bringing  any  other  subject  into  discussion. 
When  we  ask  why  Christ  did  not  proceed  furthei 


NOTE    B.  425 

to  enlighten  his  hearers,  we  forget  how  unprepared 
they  were  for  such  instruction,  what  prejudices 
must  have  been  overcome,  what  wrong  associations 
broken,  how  much  of  inquiry  on  their  part,  and  of 
explanation  on  his,  would  have  been  necessary, 
how  liable  his  language  was  to  be  misunderstood, 
and  how  fatal  it  would  have  been  to  the  purpose 
of  his  mission  thus  to  occupy  their  thoughts  upon 
topics  unconnected  with  it.  We  forget  what  op- 
position he  had  to  encounter,  how  all  his  words 
and  actions  were  watched  with  malignant  eyes, 
how  often  his  enemies  came  proposing  questions 
to  try  what  he  would  say,  that  they  might  find 
opportunity  to  injure  him.*  We  do  not  remember, 
that  no  error  could  be  touched  without  affording 
some  new  occasion  or  pretence  of  hatred  ;  and  that 
whatever  he  spoke  would  be  misunderstood,  per- 
verted, misrepresented,  and  made  a  ground  for  false 
inferences.  We  do  not  keep  in  mind  the  imperfect 
apprehensions  of  his  disciples,  of  which  we  find 
continual  notices  in  the  Gospels,  and  the  utter  in- 
docility  of  the  great  body  of  the  Jews,  which  is 
equally  apparent.  We  forget,  that,  after  a  min- 
istry of  unintermitted  effort,  he  fell  a  sacrifice  to 
the  truths  which  he  did  teach.  In  asking  why  his 
instructions  did  not  extend  to  other  truths,  and  to 
the  correction  of  errors  not  essential,  we  forget  how 
difficult  was  his  proper  office,  we  forget  by  whom 
he  was  surrounded,  we  forget  the  reproach  that 
was  forced  from  his  lips  :  "  O  unbelieving  and  per- 

•  The  Common  Version  says,  "  to  tempt  him." 


426  APPENDIX. 

verse  race  !  how  long  shall  I  be  with  you  ?  How 
long  must  I  bear  with  you  ?  "  It  was  not  to  men 
so  little  ready  to  receive  his  essential  doctrines  that 
any  unnecessary  instruction  was  to  be  addressed. 
We  mistake  altogether  the  state  of  the  case,  when, 
in  reading  the  Gospels,  we  conceive  of  Christ  as 
teaching  with  the  same  freedom  of  explanation, 
and  with  the  same  use  of  language,  with  which 
we  may  perhaps  reasonably  suppose  that  he  would 
have  taught  a  body  of  enlightened  men,  receiving 
his  words  with  the  entire  deference  with  which  we 
now  regard  them. 

The  wisdom  and  the  self-restraint,  for  so  it  is 
to  be  considered,  of  our  Saviour,  in  confining  his 
teaching  to  the  essential  truths  of  religion,  and  the 
broad  distinction  which  he  thus  made  between 
these  and  all  other  doctrines,  appear  to  me  among 
the  most  striking  proofs  of  the  divinity  of  his  mis- 
sion. I  cannot  believe,  that  a  merely  human 
teacher  would  have  conducted  himself  with  such 
perfect  wisdom ;  that  he  would  never  have  at- 
tempted to  use  his  authority,  or  have  displayed 
his  superior  knowledge,  in  maintaining  other  truths 
than  those  which  essentially  concern  the  virtue  and 
happiness  of  mankind ;  that  he  would  have  re- 
frained from  exposing  or  contradicting  the  errors 
of  his  opponents  on  any  other  subjects  ;  that  he 
would  have  succeeded  in  communicating  to  his 
disciples  those  principles  which  are  the  foundation 
of  all  religion  and  morality,  without  perplexing 
their  minds  by  the  discussion  of  any  topics  less 
important ;  and,  at  last,  have  left  his  doctrine  a 


NOTE    B.  427 

monument  for  all  future  time,  —  not  like  the  works 
of  some  enlightened  men,  which  perish  with  the 
errors  they  destroy,  but  remaining  a  universal  code 
of  instruction  for  mankind. 

BUT  there  is  another  very  different  point  of  view, 
under  which  the  subject  we  have  been  examining 
affords,  I  think,  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity. If  the  Gospels  are  an  authentic  account 
of  what  was  done  and  said  by  Christ,  no  question 
can  remain  whether  Christ  were  a  teacher  from 
God.  But  that  they  are  so,  we  have  evidence  in 
the  facts  which  have  been  brought  to  view. 

When  we  compare  the  language  of  Christ  re- 
specting his  future  coming  with  the  expectations 
expressed  by  his  Apostles,  we  perceive  that  his 
language  was  misunderstood  by  them.  He  did 
not  predict  his  visible  return  to  earth  to  be  the 
judge  of  men.  There  is  nothing  in  his  words 
which  requires  or  justifies  such  an  interpretation 
of  them.  It  has  appeared,  I  trust,  that  the  figura- 
tive language  which  he  used  is  to  be  understood  in 
a  very  different  sense. 

But  the  Apostles,  from  various  causes,  were  ex- 
'pecting  such  a  return  of  their  Master.  Their  words 
admit  of  no  probable  explanation  except  as  refer- 
ring to  this  anticipated  event.  What,  then,  fol- 
lows as  a  correct  inference  from  this  comparison  ? 

It  follows,  that  the  words  relating  to  this  subject, 
which  are  ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  Gospels,  were 
truly  his  words.  They  were  not  falsely  ascribed 
to  him.  They  were  not  imagined  for  him.  They 


428  APPENDIX 

were  not  conformed  to  the  apprehensions  of  his 
followers.  Had  his  followers  fabricated  or  inten- 
tionally modified  the  words,  they  would  have  made 
their  Master  say  what  they  themselves  have  said, 
in  language  as  explicit  as  their  own. 

Here,  then,  we  have  evidence  of  the  most  unsus- 
picious kind,  for  it  is  clearly  evidence  which  it  was 
the  purpose  of  no  individual  to  furnish,  that  cer- 
tain words  recorded  in  the  Gospels  were  uttered 
by  Christ.  The  writers  of  these  books  did  not  in 
this  case  fabricate  language  expressive  of  their  own 
opinions,  and  ascribe  it  to  him.  And  if  they  did 
not  in  this  case,  concerning  a  subject  on  which 
they  taught  what  he  did  not  teach,  we  have  no 
reason  to  suspect  them  of  having,  in  any  other 
case,  intentionally  ascribed  to  him  words  which  he 
did  not  utter. 

The  words,  then,  ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  Gos- 
pels are  words  of  Christ.  They  have  been  reported 
by  well-informed  individuals,  who  had  no  intention 
of  deceiving,  and  who  did  not  even  conform  them 
to  their  own  apprehension  of  their  meaning.  I  will 
not  pursue  the  inferences  from  these  truths.  I  will 
only  observe,  that  the  proof  of  them,  as  we  have 
seen,  is,  through  the  providence  of  God,  bound  up 
in  the  New  Testament  itseL*.  An  error  of  the 
Apostles  proves  the  reality  of  their  faith.  In  seek- 
ing to  solve  a  difficulty,  we  discover  unexpected 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity.  And  I  am 
persuaded,  that,  as  the  New  Testament  is  better 
understood,  as  the  false  notions  that  have  prevailed 
concerning  it  pass  away,  and  it  is  made  a  sub 


NOTE    B.  429 

ject  of  enlightened  investigation  and  philosophical 
study,  new  and  irresistible  proofs  will  appear  of 
that  fact,  of  which  we  can  hardly  estimate  the  full 
magnitude  and  interest,  that  Christ  was  a  teacher 
from  God. 

IN  reference,  indeed,  to  the  very  subject  we  have 
been  examining,  there  is  another  consideration  well 
deserving  attention.  We  have  seen  what  were  the 
anticipations  of  the  Apostles  concerning  the  per- 
sonal return  of  their  Master  to  earth,  and  the 
approaching  termination  of  the  world.  But  in 
connection  with  these  expectations,  a  remarkable 
phenomenon  presents  itself.  We  might  have  sup- 
posed, that  the  imaginations  and  feelings  of  the 
Apostles  would  have  been  seized  upon  and  in- 
flamed by  the  prospect  of  such  events ;  that  they 
would  have  continually  placed  them  before  the 
eyes  of  those  whom  they  addressed,  and  have 
urged  them  upon  the  thoughts  of  men  ;  that  I  heir 
exhortations  and  warnings  would  always  have 
borne  the  impress  of  anticipations  so  extraordinary 
and  so  exciting.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  We 
may  read  far  the  greater  part  of  what  they  have 
left  us  in  writing,  without  discovering  an  intima- 
tion that  they  held  such  opinions.  It  is  clear,  that 
they  did  not  insist  upon  the  facts  in  question  as  of 
any  considerable  moment  They  introduce  the 
mention  of  them  as  accessory  ideas  in  connection 
with  the  doctrine  of  immortality  and  retribution. 
Imagine  any  other  body  of  individuals  laboring 
with  like  earnestness  and  devotion  for  the  reforma- 


430  APPENDIX. 

tion  of  their  fellow-men,  under  a  similar  belief  of 
the  approaching  end  of  the  world  ;  —  imagine  what 
would  be  the  feelings  and  language  of  such  indi- 
viduals, and  contrast  them  with  those  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  you  may  perceive  what  a  singular  phe- 
nomenon is  presented  in  the  New  Testament. 

In  what  manner  is  this  phenomenon  to  be  ex- 
plained? How  is  the  problem  to  be  solved,  that 
men,  anticipating  the  end  of  the  world  and  the 
final  judgment  of  mankind  as  at  hand,  should  have 
insisted  so  little  upon  these  events  for  the  purpose 
of  exciting  the  terrors  or  the  hopes  of  those  whom 
they  addressed  ?  It  can  be  explained,  I  think,  bat 
in  one  way.  The  feelings  which  those  expected 
events  would  naturally  have  produced  were  ab- 
sorbed in  the  deeper,  the  intenser  feeling,  produced 
by  a  thorough  conviction  of  the  essential  truths  of 
religion.  To  them,  who  knew  themselves  the  crea- 
tures, the  care,  the  special  ministers,  of  the  God  of 
Love;  to  them,  the  disciples  of  his  Son,  the  wit- 
nesses, nay,  themselves  the  very  agents,  of  that 
divine  power  by  which  the  laws  of  nature  were 
suspended  ;  to  them,  before  whose  view  the  clouds 
resting  upon  eternity  had  been  rolled  away,  —  the 
consummation  of  this  world  was  of  little  more  con- 
cern than  the  revolution  of  an  empire.  Assured  of 
immortality,  and  with  everything  to  give  strength 
to  the  feeling  which  this  assurance  is  adapted  to 
produce,  it  was  of  small  moment  to  them  or  to 
their  disciples  whether  with  the  dead  they  should 
be  raised  incorruptible,  or  whether  with  the  living 
they  should  be  changed.  One  all-penetrating  sen- 


NOTE    B.  431 

liment  01  the  truth  of  their  religion  annihilated  the 
power  of  smaller  excitements.  Their  feelings  were 
calmed  by  the  contemplation  of  one  absorbing  in- 
terest, which  no  changes  could  affect. 

How,  then,  was  this  conviction  of  the  truth  of 
their  religion  produced,  —  this  conviction  which  so 
wrought  upon  their  minds  that  the  anticipated 
consummation  and  judgment  of  the  world  had  no 
power  strongly  to  move  them  ?  There  is  one  an 
swer  to  this  question  which  a  Christian  will  give 
I  know  of  no  other. 


NOTE    C. 

BT    THE    KDITOB. 

(See  pp.  183  - 191.) 

VARIOUS  READINGS  OF  CERTAIN  PASSAGES  SUP- 
POSED  TO  HAVE  A  BEARING  ON  THE  DOCTRINE 
OF  THE  TRINITY. 

BESIDE  the  three  celebrated  passages  which  have  been 
remarked  upon  by  Mr.  Norton,  —  Acts  xx.  28,  1  Timo- 
thy iii.  1 6,  and  1  John  v.  7,  8,  —  there  are  others,  of  more 
or  less  importance,  whose  supposed  bearing  on  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  affected  by  various  readings  of  the  original 
text.  It  is  the  object  of  the  present  note  to  exhibit  all  the 
passages  of  this  class  that  can  be  regarded  as  of  any  conse- 
quence, where  a  reading  different  from  that  followed  in  the 
Common  Version  has  been  adopted  in  any  of  the  leading 
critical  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  which  have  been 
published  in  the  present  century.  In  some  instances,  the 
reading  thus  adopted  may  be  thought  more  favorable  to 
the  Trinitarian  theory  than  that  which  before  stood  in 
the  text ;  in  others,  the  reverse  is  the  case. 

The  examples  which  are  about  to  be  given  of  various 
readings  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament,  in  con- 
nection with  those  which  have  already  been  noticed,  might 
perhaps  lead  one  imperfectly  acquainted  with  the  subject  to 
suppose  the  differences  in  the  original  manuscripts  to  be 
more  important  than  they  really  are.  The  number  of  these 
differences,  or  various  readings,  is  very  large ;  but  an  ex- 
anination  of  them  tends  only  to  confirm  our  confidence  in 


NOTE    C.  433 

the  essential  correctness  with  which  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  has  been  transmitted  to  us.  At  least  nineteen 
twentieths  of  them,  as  Mr.  Norton  has  remarked,*  may  be 
dismissed  at  once  from  consideration,  as  being  so  obviously 
errors  of  transcribers,  or  found  in  so  few  authorities,  that 
no  critic  would  regard  them  as  having  any  claim  to  be 
received  as  genuine.  Setting  these  aside,  we  shall  find 
that  about  the  same  proportion  of  those  which  remain  are 
of  no  sort  of  consequence  as  affecting  the  sense.  A  small 
number,  however,  are  of  a  nature  to  excite  some  interest ; 
there  are  a  few  passages  of  considerable  length  in  the 
Received  Text  whose  genuineness  is  doubtful  or  more  than 
doubtful,  as  the  doxology  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  last 
twelve  verses  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  the  story  of  the 
woman  taken  in  adultery.  See  also,  in  the  critical  editions, 
Matthew  xxiii.  14;  xxvii.  35 ;  Mark  vi.  11;  Luke  ix.  55, 
56 ;  xvii.  36 ;  John  v.  3,  4 ;  Acts  viii.  37  ;  ix.  5,  6 ;  and  xxiv. 
6-8.  But  it  may  be  safely  said,  that  the  various  read 
ings  do  not  appreciably  affect  the  evidence  of  any  theo- 
logical doctrine  except  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity;  and 
with  respect  to  this,  their  importance  has  often  been  exag- 
gerated. Still,  in  studying  the  Scriptures  to  ascertain  what 
they  teach,  the  first  thing  to  be  settled  is,  what  is  Scripture. 
If  words  which  purport  to  be»  a  part  of  Scripture,  in  the 
copies  which  are  in  common  use,  are  spurious,  or  doubtful, 
the  lover  of  truth  will  wish  to  know  it ;  and  the  greater  his 
reverence  for  Scripture,  the  more  desirous  will  he  be  not  to 
confound  the  mistakes  of  transcribers  with  the  words  of 
Evangelists  and  Apostles. 

The  place  of  true  reverence  for  Scripture  has,  however, 

*  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  Vol.  I.,  Addi- 
tional Note  A,  Sect.  III.,  "  On  the  Character  and  Importance  of  the 
Various  Readings  of  the  New  Testament,"  p.  xxxviii.  The  sub- 
stance of  this  Section  is  reprinted  in  Mr.  Norton's  Notes  on  the  Gos- 
pels, Preliminary  Note  I. 


434  APPENDIX. 

too  often  been  usurped  by  a  blind  and  superstitions  re^ 
erence  for  what  has  been  called  the  u  Received  Text."     li 
will  be  proper,  therefore,  before  entering  on  the  principal 
subject  of  this  note,  to  state  some  facts  in  regard  to  the  his- 
tory of  the  printed  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament, 

THE  earliest  printed  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  was 
that  contained  in  the  fifth  volume  of  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot.  The  printing  of  this  volume,  it  appears,  was 
completed  in  1514;  but  it  was  not  published  till  1522. 
The  manuscripts  which  were  used  for  it  have  never  been 
identified,  though  the  story  of  their  having  been  sold  to  a 
rocket-maker  is  now  exploded  ;  *  and  there  has  been  much 
controversy  respecting  their  value.  The  editors  speak  of 
them  as  "  very  ancient  and  correct " ;  but  there  is  reason 
for  questioning  their  competency  to  determine  the  fact. 
The  art  of  criticism  was  then  in  its  infancy ;  such  works  as 
Montfaucon's  Pala3ographia  Grasca  did  not  exist ;  and,  as 
Bentley  says,  "  it  is  not  everybody  knows  the  age  of  a 
manuscript."  It  is  remarked  by  Bishop  Marsh,  that  the 
text  which  they  have  given  almost  invariably  agrees  with 
that  of  the  modern  Greek  manuscripts,  —  such  as  were 
written  in  the  thirteenth  century  or  later,  —  where  these 
differ  from  the  most  ancient,  and  from  the  quotations  of  the 
early  Greek  Fathers.  "  There  cannot  be  a  doubt,  there- 
fore," he  says,  "  that  the  Complutensian  text  was  formed 
from  modern  manuscripts  alone."  f  Wetstein  had  before 
come  to  the  same  conclusion.  J 

The  first  published  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  was 

*  See  an  article  by  Dr.  James  Thomson,  first  published  in  the 
Biblical  Review  for  March  1847,  and  afterwards  reprinted  in  Tre- 
gelles's  "  Account  of  the  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament," 
pp.  12-18. 

t  Lectures,  &c.,  p.  96. 

J  Nov.  Test.  Graec.  (Prolegom.),  Tom.  I.  p  118. 


NOTE    C.  435 

printed  nt  Basle  in  1516,  under  the  editorial  care  of  Eras- 
mus. The  Greek  text  was  accompanied  by  a  revised  Latin 
version,  and  a  large  body  of  annotations.  Though,  some 
preparation  had  been  made  for  the  work,  much  of  it  was  un- 
finished when  the  printing  was  commenced  ;  *  Erasmus  was 
carrying  through  the  press  at  the  same  time  an  edition  of 
the  works  of  St.  Jerome,  and  a  new  edition  of  his  Adagia ; 
yet  the  whole  volume,  containing  nearly  one  thousand  folio 
pages,  was  printed  in  less  than  six  months  !  Pracipitatum 
fuit  verius  quam  editum,  "  it  was  driven  headlong  through 
the  press  rather  than  edited,"  as  Erasmus  himself  says  in 
one  of  his  letters.f  The  cause  of  this  excessive  haste  was 
the  fear  of  the  publisher,  Froben,  that  his  edition  would  be 
anticipated  by  the  Complutensian.  Only  four  or  five  manu- 
scripts were  used,  all  of  them  modern,  and,  with  one  ex- 
ception, of  very  little  value.  A  second  and  more  correct 
edition  was  published  by  Erasmus  in  1519,  and  a  third  in 
1522.  According  to  Mill,  the  second  edition  differs  from 
the  first  in  about  four  hundred  places,  and  the  third  from 
the  second  in  one  hundred  and  eighteen.  The  text  of  Eras- 
mus was  worst  in  the  Apocalypse,  of  which  he  had  but  a 
single  manuscript,  and  that  mutilated,  wanting  the  last  six 
verses  of  the  book.  This  deficiency  he  supplied  as  well  as 
he  could  by  retranslating  from  the  Latin  Vulgate  into 
Greek.  In  his  fourth  edition,  which  appeared  in  1527,  he 
altered  the  text  of  the  Apocalypse  in  about  ninety  places 
on  the  authority  of  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  but  made 
few  other  changes.  His  fifth  edition,  published  in  1535, 
varies  scarcely  at  all  from  the  fourth.  Compared  with  the 
first,  its  text  would  seem,  according  to  the  account  of  Mill, 
to  have  been  altered  in  about  six  hundred  places.  Of  these 

*  "  Conficiebatur  [Conficiebantur  is  a  misprint]  simul  et  excude- 
batur  opus."  —  Erasmi  Epist.  CCLI.  (Budaeo.)    Opp.  III.  col.  250 
t  Epist.  CCLXXIV.  (Pirckheimero.)    Opp.  III.  col.  26S. 
41* 


436  APPENDIX. 

changes,  in  tlie  judgment  of  the  same  ciitic,  more  than  one 
hundred  were  not  improvements. 

The  principal  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  published 
in  the  sixteenth  century  subsequently  to  the  fifth  of  Eras- 
mus, were  those  of  Robert  Stephens  and  Beza.  Among 
the  various  editions  of  Stephens,  the  third,  printed  at  Paris 
in  1550,  is  the  most  celebrated,  and  the  most  important  in 
its  influence  on  others  which  succeeded  it.  Fifteen  manu- 
scripts and  the  Complutensian  edition  were  collated  for  it, 
the  various  readings  being  noted  in  the  margin.  It  was 
the  first  edition  which  contained  a  critical  apparatus  of  this 
kind.  The  manuscripts  collated,  however,  were  used  very 
little,  if  at  all,  for  the  improvement  of  the  text.  As  Tre- 
gelles  remarks,  "the  various  readings  seem  rather  to  be 
appended  as  an  ornament?  the  text,  in  reality,  differing  but 
slightly  from  the  fifth  edition  of  Erasmus,  except  in  the 
Apocalypse,  where  the  Complutensian  was  chiefly  followed. 
The  splendor  of  its  typography,  and  the  display  of  various 
readings,  appear,  however,  to  have  given  this  edition  a  repu- 
tation to  which  it  had  no  title  from  intrinsic  merit.  Its 
credit  among  Protestants  was  also  doubtless  enhanced  by 
the  fact  that  Stephens,  who  had  been  much  harassed  by  the 
bigoted  doctors  of  the  Sorbonne,  withdrew  to  Geneva  soon 
after  its  publication,  and  announced  himself  a  convert  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Reformation. 

Beza,  who  published  five  editions  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment, accompanied  with  a  Latin  version  and  notes,  in  1565, 
1576,  1582,  1589,  and  1598,  had  some  highly  valuable 
manuscripts.  But  he  made  very  little  use  of  them.  He 
mostly  followed  the  text  of  Stephens's  third  edition,  and 
where  he  differed  from  it  often  altered  it  for  the  worse, 
sometimes  introducing  readings  on  mere  conjecture,  and 
frequently  on  very  slight  authority.  In  his  version  and 
notes  he  has  in  many  instances  followed  readings  different 
from  those  which  he  has  retained  in  the  Greek  text. 


NOTE    C.  437 

The  common  English  version  of  th«  Bible,  made  by 
order  of  King  James,  was  first  published  in  1611.  The 
Greek  text  followed  by  the  translators  seems  to  accord 
more  nearly  with  that  of  Beza's  fifth  edition  (1598)  than 
with  any  other.  It  agrees  with  Beza  in  opposition  to  the 
third  edition  of  Robert  Stephens  in  about  eighty  places; 
with  Stephens  in  opposition  to  Beza,  in  about  half  that 
number;  and  in  about  a  dozen  instances  it  differs  from 
both.*  Most  of  these  variations  are  very  trivial. 

We  come  now  to  the  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament 
published  by  the  Elzevirs  at  Leyden  in  1624.  This  was 
based  on  the  third  edition  of  Stephens,  a  few  readings, 
however,  being  derived  from  other  sources,  particularly 
from  Beza.  It  differs  from  Stephens  in  only  about  one 
hundred  and  seventy  places,  the  variations  being,  for  the 
most  part,  quite  insignificant,  many  of  them,  indeed,  such  as 
cannot  be  expressed  in  a  translation.  Meeting  with  favor 
on  account  of  its  neatness,  its  convenient  form,  and  the  high 
reputation  of  the  Elzevir  press  for  typographical  accuracy, 
it  was  reprinted  in  1633  with  a  preface  in  which  the  pub- 
lishers assure  the  reader  that  he  has  "  a  text  which  is  now 
received  by  all,"  —  "  Textum  ergo  habes  nunc  ab  omnibus 
receptum."  This  assertion,  if  not  strictly  true  when  it  was 
made,  soon  became  so,  substantially ;  and  the  Elzevir  text, 
formed  by  an  unknown  editor  in  the  infancy  of  biblical  criti- 
cism, was  in  almost  universal  use  on  the  continent  of  Eu- 
rope till  near  the  beginning  of  the  present  century.  It  is 
this  which  is  generally  referred  to  as  the  "  Textus  Recep 
tus"  or  "Received  Text."  It  does  not  differ  materially 
from  the  text  followed  in  the  common  English  version  of 
the  New  Testament. 

*  Many  of  these  passages  are  referred  to  in  the  lists  given  bj 
Scrivener,  in  his  "  Supplement  to  the  Authorised  English  Version 
of  the  New  Testament,"  Vol.  I.  pp.  7,  8  ;  but  his  enumeration  is  far 
from  complete. 


438  API  ENDIX. 

In  Great  Britain  the  current  text  has  varied  a  little 
from  the  Elzevir,  being  essentially  that  of  the  thir'J  edition 
of  Robert  Stephens,  —  "the  Vulgate  of  the  Protestant 
Pope  Stephens,"  as  Bentley  called  it,  his  text  having  be- 
come a  sort  of  standard  among  Protestants,  like  the  Clemen- 
tine edition  of  the  Vulgate  among  Roman  Catholics.  Ste- 
phens's  text  was  adopted  in  Walton's  Polyglot,  1657,  and 
was  reprinted  by  Mill  in  1707,  with  a  few  slight,  uninten- 
tional variations,  as  the  basis  of  his  laborious  collection  of 
various  readings  from  manuscripts,  ancient  versions,  and 
Fathers,  designed  to  serve  as  materials  for  a  critical  edition 
of  the  Greek  Testament.  Mill  expresses  his  opinion  of 
many  of  the  various  readings  in  his  Prolegomena  and 
Notes,  and  frequently  condemns  those  adopted  by  Stephens ; 
but  he  did  not  pretend  to  give  a  recension  of  the  text.  His 
reprint  of  Stephens,  however,  which  has  generally  been 
copied  in  the  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  published  in 
England,  has  often  been  termed  "  Mill's  text,"  as  if  it  had 
the  sanction  of  his  critical  judgment.  This  is  the  text  which, 
now  in  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  Ameri- 
can Bible  Union  has  adopted  as  the  basis  of  its  proposed 
revision  of  King  James's  version  of  the  New  Testament. 

From  the  statements  which  have  been  made,  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  Received  Text  resolves  itself,  substantially, 
into  that  of  the  fifth  edition  of  Erasmus ;  a  scholar  indeed, 
worthy  of  the  highest  respect  and  admiration,  but  who 
edited  the  Greek  Testament,  to  use  the  language  of  Gries- 
bach,  "  as  he  could,  from  a  very  few  manuscripts  and  those 
quite  modern,  with  no  other  helps  except  the  Latin  Vulgate 
in  an  interpolated  state,  and  the  writings  of  a  few  inaccu- 
rately edited  Fathers."  * 

SINCE  the  time  when  the  Received  Text  was  formed,  a 
*  Prolegora.  in  N.  T-,  Sect.  I.  p.  xxxvii.,  ed.  Schulz. 


NOTE    C.  439 

vast  amount  of  critical  materials  has  been  made  available 
for  its  improvement.  The  great  collection  of  various  read- 
ings by  Mill,  published  near  the  beginning  of  the  last  cen- 
tury,—  the  work  of  thirty  years,  —  has  already  been  re- 
ferred to.  This  collection  was  much  enlarged  by  Bengel 
and  Wetstein.  Toward  the  close  of  the  last  century  it  was 
again  more  than  doubled  in  amount  by  the  labors  of  Gries- 
bach,  Matthaei,  Alter,  and  Birch.  In  the  present  century, 
Scholz,  in  his  Biblisch-kritische  Reise,  or  "  Travels  for  the 
Purpose  of  Biblical  Criticism,"  and  in  his  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  has  given  an  account  of  more  than  three 
hundred  manuscripts  never  before  examined  for  critical 
purposes ;  but  a  great  majority  of  them  are  comparatively 
recent,  and  his  collations  were  very  cursory  and  inaccurate. 
The  indefatigable  and  far  better  directed  labors  of  Tischen- 
dorf  and  Tregelles  have  afforded  us,  for  the  first  time,  an 
exact  knowledge  of  many  very  ancient  and  important  docu- 
ments, which  had  before  been  but  imperfectly  collated.  I 
pass  over  numerous  minor  contributions  to  our  stock  of 
critical  materials.  The  result  of  the  whole  is,  that  the 
most  ancient  manuscripts  —  those  written  in  uncial  or  capi- 
tal letters  —  have  now  been  thoroughly  collated,  and  all 
the  more  important  of  them  accurately  transcribed  and  pub- 
lished, with  the  exception  of  the  celebrated  Vatican  manu- 
script ;  and  more  than  eight  hundred  of  the  later  manu- 
scripts containing  the  whole  or  parts  of  the  New  Testament 
have  been  examined  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  some  of 
them  thoroughly,  but  most  of  them  very  cursorily.  The 
ancient  versions,  and  numerous  quotations  from  the  New 
Testament  in  the  writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  have  also 
been  compared  with  the  common  text.  There  is  still  room 
for  useful  labor  in  the  collation  of  the  more  important  cur- 
sive manuscripts;  there  is  need  of  more  accurate  editions  and 
of  a  more  careful  examination  of  several  of  the  ancient  ver- 


140  APPENDIX. 

sions  ;  and  much  remains  to  be  done  in  enlarging,  correct- 
ing, and  sifting  the  critical  materials  which  have  been  col- 
lected from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  But  it  is  safe  to 
say,  that  the  means  which  we  have  at  our  command  for 
accurately  editing  the  Greek  New  Testament  very  far 
exceed  those  which  we  possess  in  the  case  of  any  ancient 
heathen  writer  whose  works  have  come  down  to  us. 

Though  important  materials  for  the  correction  of  the 
Received  Text  had  been  long  accumulating,  it  was  not  till 
near  the  close  of  the  last  century  that  they  were  much 
used.  The  first  who  turned  them  to  proper  account  was 
Griesbach,  whose  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  pub- 
lished in  1775  -  77,  marks  an  era  in  biblical  criticism. 
His  second  and  principal  edition,  in  which  the  critical  ap- 
paratus was  greatly  enlarged,  was  published  at  Halle  and 
London  in  1 79 6-  1806;  a  manual  edition  appeared  at 
Leipsic  in  1805.  Though  the  second  volume  of  his  larger 
edition  bears  the  date  1806,  it  was  mostly  printed  several 
years  before,  so  that  the  manual  edition  generally  repre- 
sents his  later  judgment. 

The  leading  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  which  have 
been  published  in  the  present  century  are  those  of  Gries- 
bach, Matthaei,  Scholz,  Laehmann,  and  Tischendorf,  to 
which  may  perhaps  be  added  that  of  Alford,  though  the 
last  has  not,  like  the  others  which  have  been  named,  added 
anything  to  our  critical  materials.  Griesbach's  has  already 
been  noticed ;  Matthsei's  was  published  at  Wittenberg,  Hof, 
and  Ronneburg,  in  1803  -  7,  3  vols.  8vo ;  Scholz's  at 
Leipsic,  in  1830-36,  2  vols.  4to;  and  Lachmann's  larger 
edition  at  Berlin,  in  1842-50,  2  vols.  8vo.  Tischendorf 's 
second  Leipsic  edition  appeared  in  1849,  8vo,  and  the 
second  edition  of  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  Vols.  I.  and 
II.  (ending  with  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians), 
was  published  at  London  in  1854-55.  (First  editionT 
1849  -  52.)  The  third  volume  has  not  yet  been  issued. 


NOTE    C.  441 

To  give  a  comparative  estimate  of  the  value  of  these 
editions,  and  to  point  out  in  detail  their  distinguishing 
characteristics,  cannot  here  be  attempted.  The  eminent 
merits  of  Griesbach  are  too  well  known  to  need  particular 
remark.  Of  the  other  editions  which  have  been  men- 
tioned,  Lachmann's  and  Tischendorf 's  have  at  present  the 
highest  reputation,  among  those  qualified  to  pronounce  on 
such  matters,  both  on  the  Continent  and  in  Great  Britain ; 
while  the  critical  judgment  of  Matthaei  and  of  Scholz  is 
little  esteemed.  —  Mattha3i's  edition  of  1803-7,  and  his 
earlier  one  published  at  Riga  in  1782-88,  12  vols.  8vo, 
contain  some  useful  materials;  but  his  violent  prejudices 
unfitted  him  for  the  office  of  a  critic.  —  The  value  of 
Scholz's  labors  is  greatly  diminished  by  his  want  of  accu- 
racy as  well  as  of  judgment.  —  Lachmann's  edition  is 
founded  on  very  ancient  authorities,  but  too  limited  in 
number,  and,  in  the  case  of  some  important  manuscripts, 
not  thoroughly  collated.  Discarding  internal  and  collat- 
eral evidence,  he  adopts  the  reading  best  supported  by  his 
few  select  authorities,  even  when  he  does  not  regard  it  as 
genuine.  His  text  is  followed  in  the  recent  works  of  Stan- 
ley and  Jowett  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  —  The  second 
Leipsic  edition  of  Tischendorf,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  unques- 
tionably the  most  important  and  valuable  critical  edition  of 
the  Greek  Testament  which  has  appeared  since  the  time  of 
Griesbach.  Less  cautious  than  Griesbach,  he  is  some- 
times liable  to  the  charge  of  adopting  readings  unsupported 
by  sufficient  authority;  but  Alford  pronounces  his  text 
"very  far  superior  to  any  which  have  preceded  it."*  — 

*  Greek  Testament,  Vol.  I.  Prolegomena,  p.  77,  2d  ed.  —  Some 
account  of  Tischendorf  and  his  labors  may  be  found  in  the  Biblio- 
theca  Sacra  for  July  1852,  Vol.  IX.  pp.  623-628.  The  first  fasci- 
culus of  a  new  and  apparently  much  enlarged  edition  of  Tischen- 
dorf's  Greek  Testament  has  very  lately  been  published  at  Leipsic. 


442  APPENDIX. 

Alford,  in  the  first  edition  of  the  first  volume  of  his  Grerck 
Testament,  containing  the  Gospels,  professedly  gave  only 
*  a  provisional  text,"  one,  he  says,  "  which  may  be  regarded 
as  an  experiment  how  far  the  public  mind  in  England  may 
be  disposed  to  receive  even  the  first  and  plainest  results  oi 
the  now  advanced  state  of  textual  criticism."  *  The  suc- 
cess of  the  experiment  seems  to  have  been  encouraging « 
for  in  the  second  volume  of  his  work,  and  in  a  new  edi- 
tion of  the  first,  he  has  ventured  to  give  the  text  according 
to  his  judgment  of  the  evidence.  He  does  not  appear  to 
be  a  critic  of  the  highest  order,  but  his  judgment  is  better 
than  might  be  supposed  from  the  manner  in  which  he  com- 
menced his  editorial  labors.  There  is  no  hazard  in  saying, 
that,  so  far  as  the  criticism  of  the  text  is  concerned,  his  edi- 
tion is  much  the  best  which  has  yet  been  published  in  Eng- 
land. —  Meyer  has  given  a  critical  discussion  of  the  various 
readings,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  ex- 
tending to  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  (not  in- 
clusive), the  notes  on  the  remaining  books,  excepting  the 
Epistle  to  Philemon  and  the  Apocalypse,  being  prepared  by 
his  coadjutors  Liinemann  and  Huther.  Many  of  his  re- 
marks are  acute  and  valuable.  His  "  Kommentar,"  so  far  as 
it  goes,  is  one  of  the  best  helps  which  we  possess  in  the  criti- 
cal study  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  to  say  nothing 
of  its  exegetical  merits.  —  The  long-delayed  edition  of  Dr. 
S.  P.  Tregelles  promises,  when  published,  to  be  a  work  of 
great  interest  and  value.  In  his  "  Book  of  Revelation  in 
Greek,  edited  from  Ancient  Authorities ;  with  a  new  Eng- 
lish Version,"  &c.  (London,  1844),  and  his  "Account  of 
the  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament"  (London, 
1854),  as  well  as  in  various  articles  in  Kitto's  Journal  of 
Sacred  Literature,  Dr.  Tregelles  has  shown  himself  to  be 
a  truly  conscientious,  independent,  and  intelligent  critic 

*  Prolegomena,  p.  70,  1st  ed 


NOTE    C.  443 

His  untiring  zeal  and  industry  in  the  accurate  collation  of 
the  most  important  ancient  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment entitle  him  to  the  gratitude  of  all  who  desire  to  pos- 
sess a  pure  text  of  the  records  of  our  religion.  But  this  is 
not  the  place  to  give  even  a  slight  sketch  of  his  arduous 
and  disinterested  labors. 

Other  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  of  secondary  im- 
portance which  have  been  examined  for  the  purpose?  of 
this  note,  it  may  be  sufficient,  with  one  exception,  simply 
to  mention;  as  Knapp's,  4th  ed.,  Halle,  1829  (first  ed. 
1797) ;  Schott's,  3d  ed.,  Leipsic,  1825  (first  ed.  1805)  ; 
Tittmann's,  2d  stereotype  ed.,  Leipsic,  1828  (first  ed. 
1820);  Vater's,  Halle,  1824;  Hahn's,  Leipsic,  1840,— 
American  ed.  by  Dr.  Robinson,  New  York,  1842;  and 
Theile's,  stereotype  ed.,  Leipsic,  1844  (4th  ed.  1852). 
None  of  these  calls  for  special  remark,  except  that  of 
Hahn,  which,  having  been  reprinted  in  this  country  under 
the  superintendence  of  so  distinguished  a  scholar  as  Dr. 
Robinson,  and  introduced  to  the  American  public  with 
high  commendation  by  Professor  Stuart,*  requires  a  notice 
which  its  intrinsic  importance  would  not  justify. 

Hahn  professes  to  give,  in  his  notes,  a  view  of  all  the 
readings  approved  by  Griesbach,  Knapp,  and  Scholz,f 
with  a  selection  from  those  adopted  by  Lachmaun  in  his 
first  edition,  published  in  1831.  Now  it  will  hardly  be 
pretended  that  a  critical  editor  "  approves  "  those  readings 
which  he  has  marked  as  probably  spurious.  Griesbach  has 
so  marked  words  of  the  Received  Text  in  about  four  hun- 
dred and  ninety  instances.  But  Hahn  takes  no  notice  of 
this,  leaving  his  readers  to  suppose  that  Griesbach,  in  all 

•  See  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  1843,  p.  274,  et  seqq. 

f  "Ita  ut,  qui  nostra  editione  usuri  essent,  sine  ulla  difficultate 
omnes  lectiones  cognoscere  posscnt,  quas  editores  illi  suo  judicio  pro* 
barunt." —  Prsefat.,  pp.  viii.,  ix.«  ed.  Amer. 
42 


444  APPENDIX. 

these  cases,  received  the  words  as  genuine.  —  Again,  there 
are  many  readings  which  Griesbach  and  Knapp  have 
marked  as  equal  in  point  of  authority  with  those  retained 
in  the  text.  Knapp,  for  example,  has  so  marked  the  read- 
ing Kvpiov  in  Acts  xx.  28,  and  os  in  1  Timothy  iii.  16.  Such 
readings  are  to  be  regarded  as  "  approved  "  by  these  crit- 
ics, as  much  as  those  which  they  have  allowed  to  remain 
in  the  text  in  their  stead.  But  Hahn  affords  those  who 
use  his  edition  no  intimation  of  their  judgment  respecting 
them.  His  edition,  therefore,  to  say  the  least,  very  imper- 
fectly represents  the  opinions  of  Griesbach  and  Knapp 
concerning  the  various  readings.  —  But,  passing  over  the 
defects  which  have  been  referred  to,  we  shall  find  that  his 
work  often  gives  erroneously  what  it  professes  to  exhibit, 
I  have  noted  more  than  one  hundred  and  thirty  instances  in 
which  the  critical  judgment  of  Knapp  alone  is  incorrectly 
represented.  Taking  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  for  example, 
in  twenty-two  instances  Knapp  is  said  to  regard  a  read- 
ing as  doubtful  merely,*  when,  by  inclosing  it  in  double 
brackets,  he  has  marked  it  as  unquestionably  spurious ;  f  in 
two  instances  the  double  brackets  of  Knapp  are.  disregard- 
ed ;  J  and  in  three  other  places  in  this  Gospel,  the  single 
brackets  of  Knapp,  indicating  that  he  considered  certain 
words  as  doubtful,  are  passed  over  without  remark.  §  In 
Matthew  viii.  29  the  word  'Ijjo-ou,  which  stands  in  the  Re- 
ceived Text,  is  omitted  without  mention  of  the  fact  in  the 
notes.  The  different  opinions  of  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Lach- 
mann,  and  Scholz  respecting  it  are  of  course  not  stated.  In 

*  Matthew  iv.  18 ;  v.  27 ;  vi.  13,  18 ;  viii.  25,  32 ;  ix.  13,  35 ;  xii. 
35 ;  xiv.  22,  bis,  25 ;  xvi.  8 ;  xx.  6,  22,  23 ;  xxiii.  8 ;  xxv.  13,  31 ; 
xxvi.  9 ;  xxvii.  35,  64. 

t  "  His  [uncis  duplicatis]  ea  notantur,  quae  sine  dubio  spuria  ease 
rensebam."  —  Knapp,  Comment.  Isagog.  p  xxviii 

i  Matthew  xviii.  35  ;  xxviii.  20 

&  Matthew  iv.  12  ;  viii.  29;  xxi.  12 


NOTE    C.  443 

Matthew  xxviii.  20,  Hahn  leaves  his  readers  to  suppose, 
erroneously,  that  *A/i^i>  is  retained  as  genuine  by  Griesbach 
and  Knapp,  as  it  is  by  Scholz.  In  further  illustration  of 
the  character  of  Hahn's  edition,  I  will  only  refer  to  his 
treatment  of  the  passage  relating  to  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery,  John  vii.  53-viii.  11.  To  this  Griesbach  pre- 
fixes a  peculiar  mark,  indicating  that  its  spuriousness  is  in 
the  highest  degree  probable ;  Knapp  has  bracketed  it,  and 
in  the  -Introduction  to  his  Greek  Testament  (p.  xxix.)  ex- 
presses his  belief  that  it  does  not  belong  to  the  Gospel  of 
John  ;  and  Lachmann  has  rejected  it  from  the  text.  Hahn 
not  only  retains  it,  but  gives  no  hint  that  any  of  the  editors 
who  have  been  named  had  a  doubt  of  its  genuineness. 

One  general  remark  should  here  be  made  respecting  the 
editions  of  Tittmann,  Hahn,  and  Theile.  These  critics 
professedly  retain  the  readings  of  the  Received  Text,  unless 
the  evidence  against  them,  in  their  judgment,  greatly  pre- 
ponderates. It  is  only  when  the  case  is  very  clear,  that 
they  venture  to  make  a  change.*  Their  authority,  there- 
fore, whatever  it  may  be,  is  obviously  of  much  less  weight 
when  they  support  the  readings  of  the  Received  Text,  than 
when  they  reject  them. 

WE  may  now  proceed  to  the  examination  of  the  passages 
which  form  the  principal  subject  of  this  note.  It  is  to  be 
understood  that  the  editions  which  have  been  mentioned 
as  published  within  the  present  century  retain  the  read- 
ing of  the  Received  Text  unless  the  contrary  is  expressly 
stated. 

(1.)  Matthew  xix.  17.     "Why  callest  thou  me  good? 

*  See,  for  instance,  Theile's  Preface,  p.  vii. :  —  "  Ubi  vero  in  utram- 
qoe  partem  disputari  posset,  si  vel  argumenta  mutatumem  suadenUn 
prtevalerent,  lectionem  intactam  relinquere  maluimus." 


446  APPENDIX. 

There  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is,  God."  Tt  /t*e  Xry«i 
ayaBov ;  Ovdels  ayaQos,  el  pr)  els,  6  Qeof. 

Here  the  following  reading  is  adopted  by  Griesbach, 
Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Meyer,  Alford,  and  Tregelles,  as 
also  by  De  Wette,  Porter,  and  Davidson,  and  is  marked  by 
Knapp  and  Vater  as  equal  in  point  of  authority  to  that  of 
the  Received  Text:  —  Tt  p.€  eparqs  ircpl  TOV  dyadov  ;  Elf 
carlv  6  dya66s.  "  Why  askest  thou  me  concerning  what  is 
good?  One  only  is  good."  Most  of  the  critics  who  re- 
ceive this  reading  as  genuine  omit  the  word  "  good  "  as  an 
epithet  of  "  teacher  "  in  the  preceding  verse. 

In  the  parallel  passages  (Mark  x.  17,  18,  Luke  xviii. 
18,  19)  which  correspond  with  the  Received  Text  in  Mat- 
thew, there  are  no  various  readings  of  any  consequence ; 
but  this  fact  favors  the  supposition  that  transcribers  altered 
(as  they  thought,  corrected)  the  text  of  Matthew  to  make 
it  conform  to  that  of  Mark  and  Luke. 

(2.)  Luke  xxii.  43,  44.  "  And  there  appeared  an  angel 
unto  him  from  heaven,  strengthening  him,"  &c. 

These  two  verses  are  bracketed  by  Lachmann  as  doubt- 
ful, and  are  rejected  by  Granville  Penn  in  his  "  Book  of 
the  New  Covenant."  But  they  are  retained  by  all  the 
other  critical  editors.  Mr.  Norton  has  given  his  reasons 
for  regarding  them  as  spurious  in  his  Evidences  of  the 
Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  Vol.  I.,  Additional  Note  A, 
Section  V.  YL  pp,  Ixxxvii.  -  xci. 

(3.)  Luke  xxiv.  52.  "  And  they  worshipped  him,  and 
returned  to  Jerusalem  with  great  joy."  Kai  avrot, 
o-avTfs  aifoz/,  vnearpe^av^  K.  T.  X.  Here  the  words 
o-avres  avTov,  corresponding  to  "worshipped  him  and"  in 
the  translation,  are  rejected  by  Tischendorf.  But  his  au- 
thorities seem  altogether  insufficient.  The  omission  of  the 


NOTE    C.  447 

words  in  the  Cambridge  manuscript  (D),  the  only  Greek 
manuscript  in  which  they  are  known  to  be  wanting,  and  in 
the  manuscript  or  manuscripts  from  which  the  Old  Latin 
version  was  made,  was  very  probably  accidental,  the  tran- 
scriber, as  Alford  suggests,  passing  over  them  in  conse- 
quence of  the  resemblance  of  AYTON  to  the  preceding 
AYTOI. 

This  passage  has  been  quoted  by  Trinitarians  as  a  proof 
that  Christ  was  worshipped  by  his  disciples  as  the  Supreme 
Being.  But,  as  every  one  acquainted  with  the  original 
language  knows,  the  word  here  translated  "worshipped" 
simply  denotes  "  to  pay  reverence  or  homage  by  kneeling 
or  prostration,"  without  defining  the  kind  of  reverence.  It 
is  perpetually  used  in  the  Septuagint  as  the  translation  of 
the  Hebrew  word  rendered  in  the  Common  Version  by  "  to 
bow  down  before,"  "  to  do  obeisance  to,"  and  the  like.  See, 
for  example,  Genesis  xxvii.  29  ;  xxxvii.  7,  9,  10  ;  xlix.  8  : 
Exodus  xviii.  7,  &c.  See  also  its  use  in  Matthew  xviii. 
26 ;  Rev.  iii.  9.  Dr.  Robinson,  in  his  excellent  Lexicon  of 
the  New  Testament,  art.  irpoo-Kwca),  no.  1,  explains  it  in 
this  general  sense,  and  not  as  denoting  divine  worship,  in 
all  the  passages  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  Gospels  in  refer- 
ence to  Christ,  including  the  present.*  Here,  the  words 
irpoo-KwrjaavTcs  avrov  probably  express  the  fact  that  the 
disciples,  as  they  beheld  our  Lord  taken  up  from  them 
into  heaven,  knelt  down,  or  prostrated  themselves  on  the 
ground  before  him,  in  reverence.f  Mr.  Norton,  however, 

*  Tbase  passages  are  the  following  :  —  Matthew  ii.  2,  8,  11 ;  viii.  2  ; 
ix.  18 ,  xiv.  33  ;  xv.  25  ;  xx.  20 ;  xxviii.  9,  17 ;  Mark  v.  6 ;  xv.  19 ; 
Luke  xxiv.  52 ;  John  ix.  38.  The  only  other  passage  in  the  New 
Testament  in  which  the  word  occurs  in  reference  to  Christ  is  in  tho 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (i.  6),  where  it  is  used  of  the  reverence  and 
hamage  which  the  angels  are  commanded  by  God  to  pay  to  his  Son, 
as  their  superior. 

t  "  '  Having  worshipped  him,'  Trpoo-KvvrjravTfs  avrov,  that  is, 4  hav« 
42* 


448  APPENDIX. 

BO  far  as  can  be  ^  jdged  from  his  translation,*  seems  to  have 
understood  them  as  denoting  merely  the  feeling  of  reverence 
which  filled  the  hearts  of  the  disciples  as  they  returned  to 
Jerusalem  after  witnessing  the  ascension  of  their  Master. 
But  is  not  the  use  of  the  aorist  participle  an  objection  to 
this  view  ? 

It  may  be  remarked  that  the  word  worship,  both  as  a 
noun  and  a  verb,  was  used  in  a  much  wider  sense  at  the 
time  when  King  James's  version  of  the  Bible  was  made, 
than  it  is  at  the  present  day.  Examples  are  abundant  in 
Shakespeare  and  other  writers  of  that  period.  So  in  the 
marriage  service  of  the  English  Episcopal  Church:  "With 
my  body  I  thee  worship."  In  Luke  xiv.  10,  "  Then  shall 
thou  have  worship  in  the  presence  of  them  that  sit  at  meat 
with  thee,"  the  noun  "worship"  is  a  translation  of  the 
Greek  word  So'£a,  glory,  honor. 

(4.)  John  i.  18.  " No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time; 
the  only-begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
he  hath  declared  him."  Qeov  ovdels  e&paicc  ir^iroTf  •  6  p.ovo- 
ytvrjs  ufoy,  6  &v  els  rbv  KoKirov  TOV  Trarpos,  eKtlvos  e^rjyrjo-aro. 

Here,  instead  of  6  povayevrjs  vios.  '*  the  only -begotten  Son" 
we  find  in  some  important  authorities  the  reading  6  p.ovoyt- 
vrjs  Qf6s,  "the  only-begotten  God."  This  strange  reading 
(for  so  it  will  seem  to  most  Trinitarians  as  well  as  to  oth- 
ers) has  not  yet  been  adopted  in  any  edition  of  the  Greek 
Testament ;  but  it  deserves  notice,  since  it  is  defended  by 
a  critic  so  worthy  of  respect  as  Dr.  Tregelles.  Michaelis 
also  appears  disposed  to  regard  it  as  the  original  reading ;  f 

ing  thrown  themselves  prostrate  before  him/  as  the  words  strictly 
interpreted  imply.''  —  Campbell  in  loc.  See  also  Meyer's  note. 

*  "  And  they,  worshipping  him,  returned  to  Jerusalem  with  great 
joy." 

t  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  Chsip.  X.  Se^l.  2.  Vol.  H 
>  393,  2d  ed. 


NOTE    C.  449 

and  Lachmann,  as  Dr.  Tregelles  assures  us,  would  un- 
doubtedly have  received  it  into  his  text,  had  he  known  all 
the  authorities  by  which  it  is  supported. 

The  evidence  of  manuscripts  and  versions  for  and  against 
the  reading  in  question  may  first  be  stated.  The  testimony 
of  the  Fathers  will  require  a  particular  discussion.  It 
should  be  premised  that  the  words  vlos  (Son)  and  Qc6g 
(God),  in  the  abbreviated  form  in  which  they  are  written 
in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  (YC,  §C),  differ  in  but  a 
single  letter,  so  that  one  might  easily  be  substituted  for  the 
other  through  the  inadvertence  of  a  transcriber. 

The  reading  0eos,  then,  is  found  in  the  manuscripts  B 
C*  L,  33 ;  that  is,  in  the  Vatican  manuscript,  of  about  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century,  in  the  Ephrem  manuscript 
(a  prima  manu),  probably  written  before  the  middle  of  the 
fifth,  in  another  highly  valuable  manuscript  of  the  eighth 
century,  remarkable  for  its  general  agreement  with  the 
Vatican,  and  in  a  manuscript  of  the  eleventh  century,  writ- 
ten in  cursive  letters,  but  preserving  a  very  ancient  text. 
As  to  versions,  it  is  supported  by  the  Peshito  Syriac,  as 
hitherto  edited,  the  Coptic,  the  ^Ethiopic,  and  the  margin 
of  the  Philoxenian  or  Harclean  Syriac. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  reading  vlos  is  that  of  the  Alex- 
andrine manuscript  (A),  probably  written  not  long  after 
the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  and  of  the  manuscripts 
X  and  A,  written  in  the  ninth  century,  but  often  agreeing 
with  the  most  ancient  documents,  in  opposition  to  the  later. 
It  is  also  found  in  the  other  uncial  manuscripts  E  F  G 
H  K  M  S  U  V,  ranging  from  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century  to  the  tenth,  and  in  several  hundred  manuscripts 
in  cursive  letters,  mostly  later  than  the  tenth  century,  but 
some  of  them  of  much  value  from  their  usual  accordance 
with  the  best  authorities.  The  ancient  versions  which  ex- 
hibit it  are  the  Old  Latin  or  Italic,  the  Vulgate,  the  Cure- 


450  APPENDIX. 

tonian  Syriac,*  the  Philoxenian  Syriac  (in  the  text),  the 
Jerusalem  Syriac,  and  the  Armenian. 

So  far  as  the  evidence  has  yet  been  stated,  it  will  proba* 
bly  be  admitted  that  the  common  reading  is  best  supported. 
But  it  is  on  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  that  the  advocates 
for  the  reading  Beos  appear  chiefly  to  rely.  The  following 
is  the  account  given  by  Dr.  Tregelles  of  this  branch  of  the 
evidence. 

"  As  to  fathers,"  he  says,  "  the  reading  [e«fe]  may  almost 
be  called  general,  for  it  is  that  of  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Irenaeus,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  Lucian,  Basil, 
Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  Gregory  of  Nussa,  Didymus,  Basil 
of  Seleucia,  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Titus 
of  Bostra ;  as  also  of  Theodotus  (in  the  second  century), 
Arius,  Marcellus,  Eunomius,  etc. ;  and  amongst  the  Latins, 
Hilary,  Fulgentius,  Gaudentius,  Ferrandus,  Phoebadius, 
Vigilius,  Alcuin,  etc."  The  reading  vlos  "  is  found  twice 
in  Origen,  in  Eusebius,  Basil,  and  Irenaeus  (though  all 
these  writers  have  also  the  other  reading,  and  in  general 
they  so  speak  of  Gets  in  the  passage,  that  vlos  must  have 
proceeded  from  the  copyists)  :  —  the  Latin  writers  in  gen- 
eral agree  with  the  Latin  versions  in  reading  flius 

e«fe,  as  the  more  difficult  reading,  is  entitled  iu  e.<-  ocial 
attention ;  and,  confirmed  as  it  is  by  MSS.  of  the  highest 
character,  by  good  versions,  and  by  the  general  consent  of 
early  Greek  writers  (even  when,  like  Arius,  they  were 
opposed  to  the  dogma  taught),  it  is  necessary,  on  grounds 

*  This  name  has  been  given  to  a  very  ancient  and  valuable  Syriac 
copy  of  part  of  the  Gospels,  —  one  of  the  Nitrian  manuscripts  re- 
cently added  to  the  British  Museum,  —  which  is  soon  to  be  published 
(if  it  has  not  been  already)  by  the  Rev.  William  Cureton.  It  is 
"  a  version,"  as  Tregelles  remarks,  "far  more  worthy  the  epithet  ot 
'  venerable '  than  that  which  is  called  the  Peshito  as  it  has  come  down 
to  us."  ("Account  of  the  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment," p.  137  ;  comp.  pp.  160,  161.) 


NOTE    C.  451 

of  combined  evidence,  to  receive  it  in  preference  to  the 
easier  and  more  natural  reading  vios"* 

This  array  of  authorities  is  certainly  imposing ;  and  the 
argument  would  be  forcible,  perhaps  conclusive,  were  it 
not  that  the  facts  in  the  case  have  been  greatly  misappre- 
hended. Tregelles  appears,  like  Griesbach,  Scholz,  Tisch- 
endorf,  and  Alford,  to  have  relied  on  Wetstein,  whose  gen- 
eral accuracy  might  well  inspire  confidence.  But  Wetstein, 
in  his  note  on  this  passage,  has  fallen  into  extraordinary 
errors,  many  of  which  have  been  copied,  without  investi- 
gation, by  the  critics  who  have  just  been  named.  One 
who  should  take  the  statements  in  Wetstein's  note  to  be 
correct,  would  suppose  that  not  less  than  forty-four  Greek 
and  Latin  writers,  in  the  first  eight  centuries,  have  quoted 
the  passage  in  question  with  the  reading  fwvoyfvrjs  Qeos  or 
unigenitus  Deus ;  and  that  the  number  of  distinct  quota- 
tions of  this  kind  in  their  writings,  taken  together,  is  not  far 
from  one  hundred  and  thirty.  I  have  examined,  with  some 
care,  all  the  passages  specifically  referred  to  by  Wetstein, 
and  the  whole  work,  or  collection  of  works  cited,  when,  his 
reference  is  general,  —  as  "  JEpiphanius  duodecies,"  "  Hila- 
rius  de  Trinit  passim,"  "  Fulgentius  plusquam  vicies,"  — 
not  confining  my  attention,  however,  to  these  particular 
passages  or  works.  The  following  is  the  result  of  this 
examination.  Of  the  forty-four  writers  cited  by  Wetstein 
in  support  of  the  reading  povaycvfis  Qcos,  there  are  but  four 
who  quote  or  refer  to  the  passage  with  this  reading  only ;  f 
four  quote  it  with  both  readings ;  J  nine  quote  it  with  the 
reading  vl6s  or  filius  only,  except  that  in  one  of  the  quo- 

*  "  Account  of  the  Printed  Text,"  &c.,  pp.  234,  235. 

t  It  is  thns  quoted  in  the  "  Excerpta  Theodoti,"  and  also  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Epiphanius.  It  appears  to  be  once 
referred  to  in  the  Epistle  of  the  second  Synod  of  Ancyra. 

t  Irentcus,  Origen,  Basil,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 


152  APPENDIX. 

tations  of  Titus  of  Bostra  viits  Qtos  occurs ;  *  two  repeat- 
edly allude  to  it,  —  sometimes  using  the  phrase  "  only- 
begotten  God"  and  sometimes  "only-begotten  Son"  in  con- 
nection with  the  words  "  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Fa- 
ther," —  but  do  not  distinctly  quote  it ;  f  and  twenty-five  do 
not  quote  or  allude  to  it  at  all.  J  Of  the  particular  pas 
sages  referred  to  by  Wetstein,  a  great  majority  have  no 
bearing  whatever  on  the  subject,  but  merely  contain  the 
expression  p.ovoyevrjs  Qeos  or  unigenitus  Deus,  with  no  trace 
of  an  allusion  to  the  text  in  question,  —  an  expression  often 
occurring,  as  will  hereafter  appear,  in  writers  who  abun- 
dantly and  unequivocally  quote  John  i.  18  with  the  reading 
vlos  orjilius.  Indeed,  in  some  of  these  passages  we  do  not 
find  even  this  expression,  but  only  the  term  ytvrjrbs  6ew,  or 
genitus  Deus,  applied  to  Christ.  §  Sufficient  evidence  that 
these  assertions  are  not  made  at  random  will  be  given  in 
what  follows,  though  the  mistakes  of  Wetstein  cannot  here 
be  all  pointed  out  in  detail. 

We  may  now  examine  the  witnesses  brought  forward  by 
Dr.  Tregelles.  Very  few  of  these  will  stand  cross-ques- 
tioning. Of  the  twenty-Jive  writers  whom  he  has  adduced 
in  support  of  the  reading  fiovoyfvrjs  6eos,  but  four,  I  be- 
lieve, can  be  relied  on  with  much  confidence,  and  even 
their  testimony  is  far  from  unexceptionable ;  three  may  be 
regarded  as  doubtful;  eight  really  support  the  common 

*  Eusebins,  Athanasius,  Julian,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Titus  of  Bos- 
tra, Maximinus  the  Arian  bishop,  Hilary,  Vigilius  of  Tapsa,  Alcuin. 

t  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  Fnlgentius. 

J  That  is,  all  the  remaining  authorities  cited  by  Wetstein,  for 
which  see  his  note. 

§  As  in  the  following: — "  Origenes  in  Psalm  i.  ap.  Epiphanium,' 
see  Epiphan.  Hares.  LXIV.  c.  7,  Opp.  I.  531,  B,  or  Origen.  Opp.  IL 
526,  E ;  —  "Ewebius  D.  IV.  2,"  i.  e.  Dem.  Evang.  Lib.  IV.  c.  2  ;  — 
"  Prudentius  in  Apotheosi,"  viz.  line  895 ;  —  "  Claudianus  Mamert.  de 
Btatu  animse  1.  2,"  where  Lib.  I.  c.  2  must  be  the  place  intended. 


NOTE    C.  453 

reading ;  two  merely  allude  to  the  passage ;  and  eight  hava 
neither  quoted  nor  alluded  to  it. 

These  statements  of  course  require  proof.  This  will 
now  be  presented,  so  far  as  it  can  be  within  reasonable 
limits.  Though  few  passages  can  be  quoted  at  length, 
pains  will  be  taken  to  give  very  full  and  precise  references 
to  the  authorities  relied  on.  In  producing  the  testimony  of 
the  Fathers,  the  time  at  which  they  flourished  is  indicated 
in  marks  of  parenthesis  after  their  names.  In  assigning 
these  dates,  either  Cave  or  Lardner  has  generally  been 
followed. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  (A.  D.  194)  has  once  quoted 
John  i.  18  with  the  reading  Geos;*  but  this  evidence  is 
somewhat  weakened  by  the  fact  that  in  another  place,  in 
alluding  to  this  text,  he  has  the  words  povoyfvrjs  vios  Geos-t 
Another  authority  for  this  reading  is  the  work  which  bears 
the  title  "  Extracts  from  Theodotus,  and  Heads  of  the  Ori- 
ental Doctrine,  so  called,  as  it  existed  in  the  Time  of  Valen- 
tinus."  It  is  sometimes  quoted  under  the  name  of  Doctrina 
Orientals.  This  compilation  is  supposed  by  many  to  have 
been  made  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  with  whose  works  it 
is  generally  printed.  "  Theodotus "  is  several  times  cited 
hi  it,  but  more  frequently  "  the  followers  of  Valentinus,"  a 
famous  Gnostic  who  flourished  about  A.  D.  140.  The 
passage  which  contains  the  quotation  of  John  i.  18  with  the 
reading  6  p.ovoyfvr)s  Qcos  is  introduced  by  the  words  "  the 
Valentinians  say."  I  Didymus  of  Alexandria  (A.  D.  370) 
has  this  reading  twice ;  §  and  it  occurs  twice  in  the  writings 

*  Stromat.  Lib.  V.  c.  12.  p.  695,  ed.  Potter. 

\  Tore  firoTTTcvo-fts  T&V  Ko\irov  TOV  Trarpos,  f>v  6  fwvaycvrjs  vibs 
Qebs  p.6vos  egrjyrjo-aTo.  —  Quis  dives  salvetur,  c.  38.  p.  956. 

J  Doctrina  Orient,  c.  6,  apud  Clem.  Alex.  Opp.  p.  968,  ed.  Pott.; 
also  in  Fabricii  Bibl.  Graec.  Vol.  V.  p.  136,  and  in  Bunsen's  Ana- 
lecta  Ante-Nicaena,  Vol.  I.  p.  211. 

i  D«  Trinitate,  Lib.  I.  p.  69,  and  Lib.  II.  p.  140,  ed.  MingareL    Not 


454  APPENDIX. 

of  Epiphanius,  Bishop  of  Salamis  in  Cyprus  (A.  D.  368).* 
In  another  place,  Epiphanius  speaks  of  John  as  "  calling 
Christ  only-begotten  God."f  The  reading  Geos  also  re- 
ceives some  support  from  a  passage  in  the  Epistle  of  the 
second  Synod  of  Ancyra  (A.  D.  358),  in  which  it  is  said 
that  John  "  calls  the  Logos  of  God  only-begotten  God."  { 
But  one  who  has  observed  the  inaccuracy  of  such  refer- 
ences to  Scripture  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  will  not 
attach  much  weight  to  this. 

Among  the  numerous  witnesses  adduced  by  Wetstein  and 
Tregelles,  these  are  all,  as  I  believe,  which  really  support 
the  reading  Geos ;  and  their  testimony,  as  has  already  been 
intimated,  is  far  from  unexceptionable.  Didymus,  as  we 

having  been  able  to  procure  this  volume,  I  take  these  references 
at  second  hand  from  the  work  of  Guericke,  "  De  Schola  quae  Alex- 
andrinse  floruit  Catechetica,"  Pars  II.  p.  36.  There  is  no  quotation 
of  John  i.  18  in  the  other  extant  writings  of  Didymus,  most  of  which 
exist  only  in  a  Latin  translation. 

*  Haeres.  LXV.  c.  5.  Opp.  I.  612,  C,  ed.  Petav.  Here,  in  the  re- 
mark which  follows  the  quotation,  Geos  and  v  16s  are  so  interchanged 
as  to  excite  some  suspicion  of  a  corruption  in  the  text.  —  Haeres. 
LXX.  c.  7.  Opp.  I.  817,  818.  To  8e  EvayyeXiov  tyr)  •  Qfov  ovftfls 
rrcoTrore  IwpaKfv,  6  povoyevfjs  Qeos  avros  e^yrjaaTo. 

t  Movoyevrj  Qcov  avrov  (j)a(TKa>v Ilepl  irarpos  yeypaTmu, 

aXrjdivov  Qeov  •  irepl  vlov  oV,  on  fiovoyevrjs  Geoy.  (Ancorat.  c.  3. 
Opp.  II.  8,  C,  D.)  A  little  before,  however,  the  passage  in  question 
is  quoted  thus  :  6  pavoyevf)?,  6  &v  els  TOV  /coXwoi/  rot)  Trarpos,  av- 
TOS  e^yrjararo.  (Cap.  2.  p.  7,  C.)  But  so  far  as  can  be  judged  from 
the  confused  and  apparently  corrupt  text  which  precedes  and  follows, 
it  seems  probable  that  the  word  Geos  has  here  been  omitted  by  the 
mistake  of  a  transcriber. 

}  *O  8e  TOV  Qeov  TOV  Aoyoi/  [Aovoytvr)  Qeov  ....  (prj<rL  (Apud 
Epiphan.  Haeres.  LXXIII.  c.  8.  Opp.  I.  854,  C.)  Supposing  the 
authors  of  this  Epistle  to  have  read  vlos  in  John  i.  18,  they  might 
still  have  thought  themselves  justified  in  making  this  statement  by  a 
comparison  of  that  verse  with  John  i.  1,  and  by  the  fact  that  they 
regarded  the  term  Son,  applied  to  Christ,  as  necessarily  implying 
his  divinity.  A  little  after  the  passage  just  cited  (c.  9.  p.  855,  B) 


NOTE    C. 

are  informed  by  his  pupils  Palladius  and  Jerome,  became 
Wind  at  four  or  five  years  of  age.  He  has  consequently 
quoted  from  memory,  and  often  inaccurately,  repeatedly 
assigning  to  one  Epistle  of  Paul  passages  which  belong  to 
another.  In  his  first  quotation  of  the  present  passage,  as 
given  by  Guericke,  he  has  substituted  tv  TO>  /coXTrw  for  fig 
rbv  KoXirov,  and  avror  for  fVceu/oy;  in  the  second,  which 
extends  only  to  the  word  Trarpoy,  he  has  eV  TOIP  Kohnois. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Epiphanius  are  also  notorious 
for  the  carelessness  of  their  quotations  from  Scripture. 
Semisch,  in  his  valuable  work  on  the  Apostolical  Memoirs 
used  by  Justin  Martyr,  after  observing  that  many  of  the 
Fathers  have  cited  the  New  Testament  from  memory,  says 

they  say :  "  The  Son  is  God  because  he  is  Son  of  God,  just  as  he 
is  man  because  he  is  Son  of  Man,"  —  vlbs  Qebs  p.ev,  Ka6b  vlbs 
8eo{5,  a>s  avdpwnos,  Ka6b  vibs  dvdpwTrov.  So  Eusebius  says  that 
Christ  is  "the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  and  therefore  God,"  or 
"  a  divine  being/*  TOV  GeoC  p.ovoycvr)S  vios,  KCU  8ia  TOVTO  Qeog 
(Dem.  Evang.  Lib.  V.  c.  4.  p.  227,  B),  and  that  "what  is  begot- 
ten of  God  must  be  God,"  or  "  divine,"  rb  y€yevvr]fj.evov  e<  TOV  0eou 
Bebs  av  efy  (De  Eccles.  Theol.  Lib.  II.  c.  14.  p.  123,  C,  cf.  p.  124, 
C,  and  Lib.  I.  c.  12.  p.  72,  D).  Eusebius  applies  the  term  Qeos 
to  Christ  in  an  inferior  sense.  In  quoting  Eusebius  here  and  else- 
where, I  use  Gaisford's  edition,  but  refer  to  the  pages  of  Viger's  edi- 
tion (Paris,  1628),  which  are  noted  in  the  margin  of  the  former. 

I  will  give  a  single  illustration  from  Gregory  Nyssen  of  the  want 
of  accuracy  among  the  Fathers  in  such  references  to  Scripture  as 
that  which  we  are  considering.  This  writer,  in  mentioning  the  names 
which  the  Apostle  Paul  has  given  to  Christ,  says,  among  other 

things,  "  He  has  called  him a  propitiation  for  sou/s, and 

first-born  of  the  new  creation, and  only-begotten  /Son,  crowned 

with  glory  and  honor,"  &c.  —  avrbv   tVaXf<re t'AaorjJpioi' 

^  ti  X  o>  v, ical    rrjs   K  a  i  v  r\  s    KTi'creoos    Trpajroro/eoj/, 

icai  vlbv  fiovoyfVTJ,  6*6£j;   /cat  TI/ZT;  eVTe^ai/w/zei/oi/,   K.  r.X.  — 
I)e  Perf.  Christ.  Forma,  Opp.  III.  276,  277.     Compare  De  VitA 
Mosis,   Opp.  I.  225,  D:  "Os  [6  aTrooroXos]  (frrjo-tv    on  ov  TT/XH- 
6    Qfbs    l\ao-Tj'jpLov   T £>v    ^v  %a>v    TJ  fj.a)v.      (See  Komani 
i.  25.)  43 


456  APPENDIX. 

that  "next  to  Justin,  Clement  of  Alexandria.  Tertullian, 
Epiphanius,  and  Ephrera  the  Syrian  have  quoted  most 
loosely.  Vrrbal  citations  in  their  writings,  as  in  those  of 
Justin,  are  only  to  be  reckoned  as  exceptions."  *  It  is  fur- 
ther to  be  observed  in  respect  to  Epiphanius,  that  his  text 
is  well  known  to  be  very  corrupt,!  and  that  he  is  probably 
the  most  careless,  confused,  and  blundering  writer  to  be 
found  among  the  Fathers.  Petavius,  though  possessing  in 
some  respects  eminent  qualifications  for  an  editor,  appears 
to  have  given  but  little  attention  to  the  criticism  of  the 
text.  In  many  instances  gross  corruptions,  the  correction  of 
which  seems  obvious,  are  left  without  any  suggestion  of 
emendation. 

The  three  authorities  adduced  by  Dr.  Tregelles  which 
may  be  regarded  as  doubtful,  are  Origen,  Basil  the  Great, 
and  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  Origen  (A.  D.  230),  according 
to  the  text  of  his  Benedictine  editors,  has  the  reading  0eos 

*  Die  apostol.  DenkwOrdigkeiten  des  Martyrers  Justinus,  (Hamb. 
1848,)  p.  209;  comp.  p.  218,  et  seqq.  See  also  Whitby's  Examen 
Millii,  Lib.  I.  Cap.  I.  Sect.  2  et  3.  —  I  will  give  one  or  two  speci- 
mens of  Epiphanius's  professed  citations  from  Scripture.  Just  before 
his  first  quotation  of  John  i.  18  with  the  reading  Geo?,  he  adduces 
the  following  as  the  words  of  Christ:  —  Zo>  eyo>,  /cat  £rj  ev  ep.ol  6 
ttTToareiXas  fif  Trari/p,  "I  live,  and  the  Father  xvho  sent  me  lives 
in  me";  comp.  John  vi.  57  and  Gal.  ii.  20.  (Haeres.  LXV.  c.  5. 
Opp.  I.  612,  C.) — Again,  to  select  a  passage  introduced  like  his 
second  quotation  of  John  i.  18,  compare  the  following: — *H 
a>s  \eyc i  TO  TLvayyeXiov  •  Kal  dvrj\6ev  els  TOV  ovpavov,  Ka\  €Kd 
ev  8e£ifli  TOV  irarpos,  Kal  ep^erat  Kpivat  ££>VTO.S  KOI  vfKpovs,  "  Or 
again,  as  the  Gospel  says,  'And  he  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sat 
down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  is  coming  to  judge  the 
living  and  the  dead'";  comp.  Mark  xvi.  19.  (Hseres.  LXII.  c.  5. 
Opp.  I.  517,  D.)  See  also  Opp.  I.  36,  B,  C;  145,  C;  161,  A ;  486, 
D  ;  519,  C,  D,  for  a  few  of  the  numerous  illustrations  that  might  be 
given.  Equally  striking  examples  might  be  cited  from  Clement  o» 
Alexandria 

t  See  Wetstein,  Nov.  Test,  Graec,  (Prolegom.),  Tom.  I.  p.  72 


NOTE    C.  457 

twice  ,•  but,  on  the  other  hand,  he  has  vlos  once,  and  once 
vlos  TOV  Qeov,  "  Son  of  God."  In  a  work  preserved  only  in 
the  Latin  translation  of  Rufinus,  he  also  quotes  the  passage 
with  the  reading  unigenitus  Dei  jilius.*  Basil  (A.  D. 
370)  has  6*09  once,  and  in  another  passage  he  mentions 
«  True  Son,  Only-begotten  God,  Power  of  God,  and  Logos," 
as  names  given  to  Christ  in  Scripture,  or  expressions 
which,  to  use  his  phrase,  "  the  Scripture  knows  " ;  but  he 
twice  quotes  the  text  in  question  with  the  reading  wos.f 
In  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (A.  D.  412),  as  edited  by  Aubert, 
I  have  found  Qcos  four  times ;  but  he  has  vlos  three  times.J 
I  have  not  thoroughly  examined  all  of  his  works. 

*  Origen  reads  0*  6s,  In  Joan.  Tom.  ii.  c.  29,  and  Tom.  xxxii. 
c.  13.  Opp.  IV.  89,  B,  and  438,  D.  —  Y  i  d  s,  Contra  Cels.,  Lib.  II. 
c.  71.  Opp.  I.  440,  F.  (So  De  la  Rue,  from  two  manuscripts;  but 
the  previous  edition  of  Hoeschel,  followed  by  Spencer,  instead  of 
6  p.ovoy€vrjs  vlos,  reads  KCU  povoyevrjs  yf  &v  6eds,  wbich  has  all  the 
appearance  of  a  marginal  gloss.)  —  Ylbs  TOW  0eoO,In  Joan. 
Tom.  vi.  c.  2.  Opp.  IV.  102,  D.  (So  De  la  Rue,  following  the 
Bodleian  manuscript,  which  appears  to  be  a  very  excellent  one;  the 
earlier  edition  of  Huet,  which  was  founded  on  a  single  manuscript, 
reads  vlos  0tds.)  A  little  after,  in  two  allusions  to  the  passage, 
6  povoycvrjs  is  used  alone,  without  vlos  or  0ed?.  Opp.  IV.  102,  E, 
And  114,  C.—  Unigenitus  Dei  Jilius,  In  Cant.  Lib.  IV.  Opp.  III. 
91,  E. 

t  Basil  reads  6eor,  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  c.  6,  Opp.  III.  12,  B,  ed. 
Benedict.,  where  earlier  editions  have  vios,  contrary  to  the  best  manu- 
scripts. Compare  c.  8,  p.  14,  C.  —  On  the  other  hand,  Basil  has 
uios,  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  c.  11,  Opp.  III.  23,  A,  where  the  six  manu- 
scripts of  Gamier  appear  to  agree  in  this  reading,  though  one  of 
Matthaei's  Moscow  manuscripts  has  Geos.  (See  Matthias's  Nor. 
Test.  Grsec.  I.  780.)  Basil  also  reads  vlos,  Epist.  234  (al.  400),  c.  3. 
Opp.  III.  358,  B. 

t  In  the  text  prefixed  to  Cyril's  commentary  on  the  passage  in 
question,  Opp.  IV.  103,  C,  we  find  the  reading  vlos ;  the  commen- 
tary itself,  however,  a?  printed,  has  Qeos.  (See  p.  107,  B,  and  comp. 
p.  105,  B  )  Cyril's  remarks  on  this  place  are  cited  in  the  scholia  of 
two  Moscow  manuscripts  given  by  Matthsei  (Nov.  Test.  Graec.  et 


458  APPENDIX. 

The  eight  writers  cited  by  Dr.  Tregelles  who  really 
favor  the  common  reading  will  be  mentioned  hereafter, 
when  the  evidence  for  that  reading  is  stated. 

Two  others,  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (A.  D.  370)  and  Fulgen- 
tius  (A.  D.  507),  as  has  before  been  mentioned,  have  only 
alluded  to  the  passage  in  question,  and  not  in  such  a  way 
as  to  enable  us  to  determine  with  confidence  how  they 
read  it.* 


Lat.  IV.  24).  One  who  compares  these  with  his  text  as  published  by 
Aubert,  will  hardly  feel  much  confidence  in  the  latter.  —  Cyril  also 
reads  0  e  o  s  in  his  Thesaurus,  Assert,  xiii.  and  xxv.  Opp.  Tom.  V. 
P.  i.  p.  137,  B,  and  237,  A ;  and  in  the  Dialogue  "  Quod  Unus  sit 
Christus,"  ibid.  p.  786,  E.  —  He  has  the  reading  v  1 6  s ,  Thesaur., 
Assert,  xxxv.  p.  365,  C ;  and  Advers.  Neslorium,  Lib.  III.  c.  5. 
Opp.  VI.  90,  B.  This  reading  is  also  found  twice  in  an  extract 
which  he  gives  from  Julian  in  his  work  against  that  emperor.  (Con- 
tra Julian.,  Lib.  X.  Opp.  VI.  (P.  ii.)  p.  333,  C.)  —  In  an  allusion  to 
John  i.  18  we  find  6  p-ovoycvys  TOV  Qfov  Adyos,  6  fv  KO\TTOIS 
uv  TOV  TraTpos.  (Apol.  adv.  Orient.  Opp.  VI.  187,  C.)  This  is 
worth  noting,  as  showing  how  little  can  be  safely  inferred  from  such 
allusions  in  regard  to  the  reading  of  a  passage. 

*  Gregory  of  Nyssa  alludes  to  John  i.  18,  introducing  the  words 
;  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father  "  in  connection  with  the  expres- 
sion 4; only-begotten  God"  eight  times;  in  connection  with  the 
phrase  "only-begotten  Son"  twice.  I  will  quote  one  example  of 
sach  kind,  and  refer  to  the  others. —  In  the  treatise  De  Vit&  Mosis, 
Opp.  I.  192,  B,  we  find,  6  fjiovoyevfjs  9  €  6  s ,  6  &v  tv  KO\ITOI$  TOV  Tra- 
rpos, OVTOS  €O-TIV  f)  dc£ia  TOV  vtyioTov.  See  also  In  Cantic.  Homil. 
xiii.  Opp.  I.  663,  A.—  Contra  Eunom.  Orat.  II.  Opp.  II.  432,  B  ; 
447,  A;  and  478,  D.— Orat.  III.  p.  506,  C.  — Orat.  VI.  p.  595 

[properly  605],  A.  —  Orat.  X.  p.  681,  A. On  the  other  hand, 

Epist.  ad  Flavian.,  Opp.  III.  648,  A,  we  find,  6  povoyevijs  v  1 6  s  ,  6 
e>v  ev  Tols  Ko\7rois  TOV  Trarpoff,  6  cv  apx?7  ®vi  K'  r*  ^*  ^ee  &ls° 
Contra  Eunom  ,  Orat.  II.  Opp.  11.466,  C.  —  Once  we  have  6  ev 
v^rla'Tois  Gfos,  &v  tv  Tciis  Ko\Trois  TOV  Trarpds,  K.  r.  X.  In 
Cantic.  Homil.  xv.  Opp.  I.  697,  A. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  6  fiovoyevrj's  6f6s,  "the  only-begotten 
God,"  is  a  favorite  designation  of  Christ  in  the  writings  of  this  Fa- 


NOTE    C.  459 

The  eight  remaining  witnesses  produced  by  Dr.  Tre- 
gelles  —  Lucian,  Basil  of  Seleucia,  Isidore  of  Pelusium, 
Arius,  Marcellus,  Eunomius,  Gaudentius,  and  Ferrandus 
—  have,  as  I  believe,  nowhere  quoted  or  alluded  to  the  text 
in  question.  The  passages  in  their  writings  appealed  to 
by  Wetstein  have  merely  the  expression  [tovoycvrjs  Qeos  or 

ther.  There  are  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  examples  of  its  use  in 
the  treatise  against  Eunomius  alone.  It  occurs  fifteen  times  in  the 
"  Antirrheticus  adversus  Apollinarem,"  first  published  in  Zacagni's 
"  Collectanea/'  etc.  (Rome,  1698) ;  but,  notwithstanding  the  refer- 
ences of  Wetstein,  no  allusion  will  be  found  in  that  treatise  to  John 
i.  18. 

In  one  place  Gregory  says,  "  The  Scripture  declaww  concerning 
the  Logos  who  was  in  the  beginning,  that  he  is  twe  only-begotten 
God,  the  first-born  of  the  whole  creation/'  (De  Ptrf.  Christ.  FormA. 
Opp.  III.  291,  A.)  But  the  imprudence  of  concluding  from  this  that 
he  actually  had  the  reading  Qeos  in  the  passage  in  question,  hai 
already  been  illustrated.  See  before,  p.  445,  note. 

Fulgentius  has  alluded  to  John  i.  18  six  times.  I  will  quote  briefl} 
all  the  examples,  as,  taken  together,  they  clearly  show  how  little  is  to 
be  inferred  from  such  allusions. 

1 .  In  connection  with  the  phrase  unigenitus  Deus.  —  "  Ut  ille  uni- 
genitus  Deus,  qui  est  in  sinu  Patris,  non  solum  in  muliere,  sed  etiam 
ex  mnliere  fieret  homo."    Epist.  xvii.  c.  3,  in  Migne's  Patrologiaa 
Cursus  Completus,  Vol.  LXV.  col.  272,  B.  —  "  De  Deo  unigenito, 
qni  est  in  sinu  Patris,  ut  dixi,  omnia  haec  personaliter  accipe."    De 
Fide,  c.  20.  col.  681,  B. 

2.  With  unigenitus  Jilius. —  "  Quis  enim  natus  est  Deus  verus  de 
Deo  vero,  nisi  unigenitus  filius,  qui  est  in  sinu  Patris  ?  "     Ad  Trasi- 
mund  ,  Lib.  III.  c.  4.  col.  272,  B  —  "Si  vero  unigenitus  filius,  qui 
est  in  sinu  Patris,  post  aeternam  nativitatem,"  etc.    Epist.  xvii.  c.  15. 
col.  459,  C.  —  "  Dei  ergo  filius  unigenitus,  qui  est  in  sinu  Patris,  ut 
carncm  honiinis  animamqne  mundaret,"  etc.     De  Fide,  c.  17.  col. 
679,  C. 

3.  With  unigenitus  alone.  —  "  Quia  unigenitus,  qni  est  in  sinu  Patria, 
eecundum  quod  caro  est,  plenus  est  gratiae,"  etc.    De  Incarnatione, 
C.  18.  col.  583,  C. 

The  expression  "  unigenitus  Deus  "  occurs  in  the  writings  of  Fnl 
gentius  about  ninety  times. 
43* 


460  APPENDIX 

unigenitus  Deus.  I  have  not  read  through  the  Epistles  of 
Isidore  of  Pelusium;  but  with  respect  to  all  the  other 
authors  named,  I  think  it  may  be  safely  said,  that  no  trace 
of  the  reading  Ge6s  or  Deus  occurs  in  their  works.  An 
examination  of  Wetstein's  references  to  them  will  be  found 
in  the  note  below.*  Tregelles  makes  no  citations. 

*  Lucian  (A.  D.  290)  is  thus  referred  to  by  Wetstein:  "Lucia- 
nus  martyr  in  Confess,  ap.  Socrat.  H.  E.  II.  10."  The  Confession  of 
Faith  here  intended  is  the  second  Formula  of  the  Synod  of  Antioch 
(A.  D.  341),  which,  according  to  Sozomen  (Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  III. 
c.  5), "  they  said  was  found  in  the  handwriting  of  Lucian  the  Martyr  " 
It  may  be  seen  in  Socrates,  as  above  referred  to,  and  also  in  Athana- 
sius  de  Synodis,  c.  23.  Opp.  I.  P.  ii.  p.  735,  et  seq.  Learned  men 
have  not  generally  regarded  it  as  the  work  of  Lucian,  who  died  about 
thirty  years  before  it  was  first  heard  of;  but  the  question  is  unimpor- 
tant to  our  purpose.  It  simply  says,  "  We  believe in  one  God, 

the  Father  almighty,  the  creator  and  maker  of  the  universe ;  and  in 
one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  his  Son,  the  only-begotten  God,  through  whom 
all  things  were  made,"  &c. 

In  the  case  of  the  other  authors  mentioned  above,  it  may  be  suffi- 
cient to  refer  to  the  places  in  their  writings  cited  by  Wetstein,  but 
which  will  be  found,  on  examination,  to  contain  merely  the  phrase 
"  only-begotten  God." 

Basil  of  Seleucia  (A.  D.  448).  See  Orat.  I.  Opp.  p.  5.  Paris. 
1622. 

Isidore  of  Pelusium  (A.  D.  412).  See  Epist.  III.  95.  Opp.  p.  200, 
ed.  Rittershus. 

Arius  (A  D.  316).  See  Athanas.  de  Synod,  c.  15.  Opp.  Tom.  I. 
P.  ii.  p.  728,  E,  ed.  Benedict.  In  a  letter  of  Arius  given  by  Epipha- 
nius,  we  find  the  words,  7r\r)prjs  Qeos  jJiovoyevTjs,  ai/aXXouoros,  K.  r.  X. 
(Hares.  LXIX.  c.  6.  Opp.  I.  731,  D.)  But  here  a  comma  should 
probably  be  placed  after  the  word  Geoy. 

Marcellus  (A.  D.  320).  See  Euseb.  contra  Marcel.  Lib.  I.  c.  4. 
p.  19,  C. 

Eunomius  (A.  D.  360).  See  his  Expositio  Fidei,  c.  3,  apud  Fa- 
bricii  Bibl.  Grsec.  Tom.  VIII.  pp.  255,  256  ;  and  his  Apologeticus,  cc. 
15,  21,  26,  ibid.  pp.  281,  290,  298.  These  treatises  of  Eunomius  may 
also  be  foand  in  Kettberg's  Marcelliana,  and  in  Thilo's  Bibliotheca 
Patrum  Greecornm  Dogmatica,  Vol.  II. 


NOTE    C.  461 

Such  is  the  evidence  of  the  Fathers  in  favor  of  the  read- 
ing Qtos.  I  know  of  nothing  to  be  added  to  what  has  been 
mentioned.  We  may  now  consider  the  testimony  which 
supports  the  common  reading.  Only  a  small  part  of  this, 
so  far  as  I  am  aware,  has  ever  been  adduced. 

The  following  Greek  authors  quote  John  i.  18  with  the 
reading  vlos :  —  Irenaeus,  Bishop  of  Lyons  in  Gaul  (A.  D. 
178),  as  preserved  in  a  very  early  Latin  translation;* 
Hippolytus  (A.  D.  220)  ;f  the  third  Synod  at  Antioch  (A.  D. 
269),  in  their  Epistle  to  Paul  of  Samosata;  J  the  author  of 
the  "  Acta  Disputationis  Archelai  cum  Manete "  (about 
A.  D.  300  ?),  as  preserved  in  the  Latin  version ;  §  Alexan- 
der, Bishop  of  Alexandria  (A.  D.  313) ;  ||  Eusebius  of  Caesa- 
rea  (A.  D.  315),  five  or  six  times; IT  Eustathius,  Bishop 

Gaudentius  (A.  D.  387).  See  Serm.  XIX.  in  the  Maxima  Biblio- 
theca  Veterum  Patrum,  Tom.  V.  p.  975,  D,  or  in  Migne's  Patrol. 
Tom.  XX.  col.  990,  B. 

Ferrandus  (A,  D.  533)  has  the  expression  "  unigenitus  Deus  "  eight 
times,  viz.  Epist.  iii.  (ad  Anatol.)  cc.  2,  7,  9,  10, 11 ;  v.  (ad  Severum 
Scholast.)  cc.  2,  5;  vii.  (ad  Reginum  Comitem  Paraenet.)  c.  12;  in 
Migne's  Patrol.  Tom.  LXVIL,  or  in  the  Max.  Bibl.  Patr.  Tom.  IX. 

*  Contra  Hseres.  Lib.  IV.  c.  20.  (c.  37,  ed.  Grab.)  §  6.  Opp.  I. 
627,  ed.  Stieren.  Irenaeus  has  also  once  the  reading  unigenitus  filius 
Dei  (Lib.  III.  c.  11.  §  6.  p.  466),  and  once  unigenitus  Deus  (Lib.  IV. 
c.  20.  §  11.  p.  630).  The  reading  filius  Dei  obviously  supports  JUiua 
rather  than  Deus. 

t  Contra  NoCtum,  c.  5.  Opp.  II.  10,  ed.  Fabric.;  also  in  Routh's 
Scriptorum  Eccles.  Opuscula,  I.  58,  ed.  alt. 

J  Concilia,  ed.  Coleti,  I.  869,  B ;  also  in  Routh,  Reliq.  Sacr.  II. 
473  (III.  297,  ed.  alt.),  and  in  Dionysii  Alexandrini  Opp.  (Rom. 
1796),  p.  287. 

§  Cap.  32.  In  Zacagnii  Collectan.  Monnm.  Vett.,  p.  54 ;  also  in 
Hippolyti  Opp.  ed  Fabric.  II.  170,  and  Routh,  Reliq.  Sacr.  IV.  213 
(V.  121,  ed.  alt.).—  On  the  date  of  this  work  see  Lardner,  "Credi- 
bility," etc.  Part.  II.  Chap.  LXV. 

||  Epist.  ad  Alexandrum  Constantinop.,  apud  Theodoreti  Hist. 
Eccl.  Lib.  I.  c.  4.  (al.  3.)  p.  12,  ed.  Reading. 

T  De  Eccles.  Theol.  Lib.  I.  c.  9.  p.  67,  D;-  c.  20.  §§  4,  5.  p  86 


462  APPENDIX. 

of  Antioch  (A.  D.  320);*  Athanasius  (A.  D.  326,  died 
A.  D.  373),  four  times,  and  Pseud- Athanasius  once ;  f  the 
Emperor  Julian  (A.  D.  362)  twice  ;J  Titus  of  Bostra 

A,  B ;  —  ibid.  §  7,  sub  fin.  p.  92,  D  ;  — Lib.  II.  c.  23,  ad  fin.  p.  142, 
C;  — and  Comm.  in  Psalm.  Ixxiii.  11,  in  Montfaucon's  Collcctio 
Nova,  etc.  I.  440,  A. 

The  first  passage  of  Eusebius  which  has  been  referred  to  is  peculiar, 
reading  as  follows  :  Tov  T€  evayye\io~rov  $iappf)8r)v  avrbv  vlov  p.ovo- 
flvai  diSa&KOVTOS  6V  o>i>  e<pj;,  Qeov  ovdels  €a>pa<e  ira>7TOT€,  6 
flos,  f)  povoyevrjs  Qeos,  6  &v  els  TOV  KO\7rov  TOV  Trarpoy, 
fKelvos  e^yqcraro  ;  that  is,  "  The  Evangelist  expressly  teaches  that 
he  is  the  only-begotten  Son,  when  he  says, '  No  man  hath  seen  God  at 
any  time;  the  only-begotten  Son,  or  only-begotten  God,  who  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him.' "  But  here  it  is  evident, 
as  Montagu  remarks  in  his  note  on  the  place,  that  the  words  rj  p.ovo- 
yfvfjs  0eds,  "  or  only-begotten  God/'  form  no  part  of  the  quotation. 
They  appear  to  be  a  marginal  gloss  which  has  crept  into  the  text. 
—  The  only  passage  which  I  have  found  in  Eusebius  that  seems  to 
countenance  the  reading  6eos  is  the  following.  After  using  the 
strongest  language  respecting  the  supremacy  of  the  Father  over  all 
other  beings,  and  quoting  Ephesians  iv.  5,  6,  he  proceeds:  "And 
He  alone  may  be  called  (xprjfiaTifcoi  av)  the  one  God,  and  Father 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  but  the  Son  [may  be  called]  only-begotten 
God,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father  (6  de  vibs  p-ovoyev^s  0eos, 
6  &v  els  TOV  KO\TTOV  TOV  Trarpos)  ;  and  the  Paraclete,  Spirit,  but 
neither  God  nor  Son."  (De  Eccles.  Theol.  Lib.  III.  c.  7.  pp.  174, 
175.)  Here  it  will  be  observed  that  Eusebius  does  not  assert  that 
the  Son  is  called  "  only-begotten  God  "  in  Scripture,  but  only  that  it 
is  proper  to  give  him  that  name.  This  passage,  therefore,  does  not 
weaken  the  force  of  his  express  quotations  of  John  i.  18  with  the 
reading  vios- 

*  De  Engastrimytho,  as  printed  (from  the  edition  of  Leo  Allatius) 
in  Tom.  II.  p.  1150,  med.  of  the  Critici  Sacri,  ed.  Amst.  1698;  in 
Tom.  VIII.  col.  443,  1.  34,  of  the  London  edition. 

t  Athanasius  de  Decret.  Nic.  Synod,  c.  13.  Opp.  1.219,  E,  ed. 
Benedict.  —  Ibid.  c.  21.  p.  227,  D.  —  Orat.  II.  contra  Arian.  c.  62. 
p.  530,  D.  —  Orat.  IV.  contra  Arian.  c.  26.  p.  638,  A.  —  Pseud 
Athanasius  contra  Sabellian.  c.  2.  Opp.  II.  38,  D. 

J  Apud  Cyril.  Alex.  Lib.  X.  contra  Julian.  Opp.  VI.  (ii.)  333, 
also  in  "  Defense  du  Paganisme  par  I'Empereur  Julien  en  Grec  et  en 


NOTE    C.  463 

A.  D.  362)  ;  *  Gregory  Nazianzen  (A.  D.  370)  ;t  the  author 
of  a  Homily  published  with  the  works  of  Basil  ;  t  Rufinus 
Syrus  or  Palaestinensis  (about  A.  D.  390),  as  preserved  in 
a  very  early  Latin  translation  ;  §  Chrysostom  (A.  D.  398), 
at  least  eight  times  ;||  Theodoret  (A.  D.  423),  at  least 
four  times  ;  ^  and  Proclus,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 
(A.  D.  434).**  To  these  may  be  added  several  Greek 
writers  of  less  weight,  being  later,  and  some  of  them  of 
quite  uncertain  date;  as  jRsewcfo-Cyril,  ft  Pseudo-Csesa- 


,  avec  des  Notes  par  Mr.  le  Marquis  d'Argens,"  3e  ed.,  II. 
120,  122. 

*  Contra  Manichseos,  Lib.  III.,  apud  Basnage,  Thesaur.  Monum. 
Eccles.  et  Hist,  sive  Canisii  Lectiones  Antiq  ,  I.  144,  145.  —  But  ibid. 
p.  153,  we  have  the  reading  6  povoytitrjs  vios  0eos;  compare  the  in- 
terpolation on  the  same  page  in  the  quotation  of  Matthew  iii.  17  or 
xvii.  5,  as  follows  :  Kai  ^aprupet  p-ev  f)  rov  Kvpiov  <f)a)vr)  •  OVTOS 
6  vios  p.ov  6  povoy  evrj  s  ical  dyairrjTos-,  fv  a>  tya  ev- 


t  Oat.  XXXV.  c.  17.    Opp.  I.  573,  C,  ed.  Bill. 

t  Pseucfo-Basil.  Homil.  in  Psalm,  xxviii.  c.  3.    Opp.  I.  359,  F. 

§  De  Fide,  Lib.  I.  c.  16,  in  Sirmondi  Opera  Varia,  Tom.  I.  (  Venet 
1728)  col.  166,  A.  —  Gamier  supposes  the  Latin  translation  to  have 
been  made  by  Julian  of  Eclanum  (A.  D.  420),  the  famous  Pelagian 
bishop. 

||  De  Incomprehensibili  Dei  Natura,  Horn.  IV.  c.  3,  bis.  Opp.  I. 
475,  A,  E,  ed.  Montf.  —  Ibid.  c.  4.  p.  476,  B.  —  Ibid.  Horn.  V.  c.  1. 
p.  481,  A.  —  Ad  eos  qui  scandalizati  sunt,  c.  3.  Opp.  III.  470,  B.  —  In 
Isaiam,  cap.  vi.  §  1.  Opp.  VI.  64,  A.  —  In  illud,  Filius  ex  se  nikil, 
etc.  c.  6.  Opp.  VI.  264,  D.  —  In  Joan.  Horn.  XV.  (al.  XIV.)  Opp. 
VHI.  84,  B  (text).  —  Ibid.  c.  2.  p.  86,  C,  compared  with  p.  87,  B. 

1  Intcrp.  in  Psalm,  cix.  1.  Opp.  1.  850,  A,  ed.  Sirmond.  —  Eranist 
Dial.  I.  Opp.  IV.  14,  B.  —  Hseret.  Fab.  Lib.  V.  c.  1.  Opp.  IV.  251, 
B.—  Ibid.  c.  2  p.  253,  D. 

*"  Oral.  XV.    Analect.  p.  440,  ed.  Riccard. 

ft  I  refer  to  the  "  Capitula  de  Trinitate,"  published  as  a  work  of 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  by  Angelo  Mai  in  his  "  Script.  Vet.  Nova  Col- 
lectio,"  Tom.  VII.  P.  II.  In  this  work,  cap.  6.  p.  31,  John  i.  18  ia 
quoted  with  the  reading  vios  ;  but  Dr.  Tregelles  ("  Account  of  thf 


464  APPENDIX. 

rius,*  Andreas  Cretensis  (A.  D.  635  Cave,  680  Saxe. 
doO  Oudin),t  Joannes  Damascenus  (A.  D.  730),  three 
times,  J  Theophylact  (A.  D.  1070),  §  and  Euthymius  Ziga- 
benus  (A.  D.  1110).  || 

The  testimony  of  the  Latin  Fathers  may  now  be  pro- 
duced. The  most  important  part  of  this  was  long  ago 
exhibited  by  Sabatier  with  his  usual  diligence  and  accu- 
racy. A  careful  examination  of  his  citations  might  have 
saved  Dr.  Tregelles  from  some  errors. 

The  following  Latin  writers  quote  John  i.  18  with 
the  reading  filius:  —  Tertullian  (A.  D.  200)  ;f  Hilary 
(A.  D.  354),  at  least  seven  times;**  Phsebadius  (A.  D. 

Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  N.  T.,M  p.  232,  note  t)  is  probably  correct 
in  regarding  it  as  the  production  of  a  later  writer  than  Cyril. 

*  John  i.  18  is  quoted  with  the  reading  vios  in  a  work  entitled 
"  Qugestiones  et  Responsiones,"  or  "  Dialog!  IV.,"  which  appears 
to  ue  as  late  as  the  seventh  century,  but  which  has  been  attributed  to 
Caesarius,  the  brother  of  Gregory  Nazianzen.  It  passed  current  under 
his  name  in  the  time  of  Photius  (A.  D.  858),  who  has  described  it 
The  quotation  of  John  i.  18  may  be  found  in  Dial.  I.  of  the  work,  as 
published,  in  a  Latin  version,  in  the  Max.  Bibl.  Vet.  Patr.,  V.  753, 
G.  The  Greek,  which  is  contained  in  Vol.  VI.  of  Galland's  Biblio- 
theca  Veterum  Patrum,  I  have  not  been  able  to  consult. 

t  Orat.  in  Transfigurat.    Opp.  p.  44,  ed.  Combefis. 

J  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  Lib.  I.  c.  1.    Opp.  I.  123,  C,  ed.  Le  Quien. 

—  Advers.  Nestorianos,  c.  32,  bis.    Opp.  I.  562,  E. 
§  Comment,  in  loc. 

||  Comment,  in  loc. 
Tf  Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  15. 

**  Tract,  in  Psalm,  cxxxviii.  c.  35.  Opp.  col.  520,  ed.  Benedict.  — 
De  Trinitate,  Lib  II.  c.  23.  col.  799,  E.  — Lib  IV.  c.  8.  col.  831,  C. 

—  Ibid.  c.  42.  col.  852,  C.  —  Lib.  V.  c.  33.  col  873,  D.  —  Ibid.  c.  34. 
col.  874,  A.  —  Lib.  VI.  c.  39.  col.  905,  E.     Hilary's  comment  on 
this  passage  shows  conclusively  that  he  rea&jilius. 

Wetstein  quotes  in  favor  of  the  reading  6f  6s  "  Hilarius  de  Trinit. 
passim,"  and  Hilary  is  also  one  of  Dr.  Tregelles's  witnesses.  The 
expression  "  unigenitus  Deus  "  occurs  in  the  treatise  "  De  Trinitate  n 
about  one  hundred  and  four  times ;  but  the  only  quotations  of  John  i.  1ft 


NOTE    C.  463 

559);*  Victormus  Afer  (A.  D.  360),  six  times  ;1  Am- 
brose (A.  D.  374),  at  least  seven  times ;  {  Faustinas 
(A.  D.  384)  ;§  Augustine  (A.  D.  396),  three  times  ;| 
Adimnntus  the  Manichaean  (A.  D.  396);  If  Maximinus, 
the  Arian  bishop  (A.  D.  428),  twice;**  the  author  of 

to  be  found  in  it  have  been  referred  to  above,  and  they  all  (six  in  num- 
ber) have  the  reading  films.  The  only  passage  in  this  work,  and,  so 
far  as  I  know,  in  Hilary's  writings,  which  can  be  imagined  to  support 
the  reading  Deus  is  in  Lib.  XII.  c.  24,  Opp.  col.  1125,  A,  where  we 
find  the  words  "  cum  unigenitus  Deus  in  sinu  Patris  est."  It  will  be 
seen,  on  examining  the  context,  that  est  is  the  emphatic  word  in  this 
sentence,  and  that  there  is  no  more  reason  for  regarding  the  expres- 
sion "  unigenitus  Deus  "  as  a  citation  from  the  Apostle  John,  than 
there  is  for  supposing  it  to  be  quoted  from  the  Apostle  Paul  in  c.  26 
of  the  same  book,  where  Hilary  says,  "  cum  secundum  Apostolum 
ante  tempora  seterna  sit  unigenitus  Deus  ";  compare  2  Tim.  i.  9. 

*  Contra  Arianos,  c.  12,  in  Migne's  Patrol.  Tom.  XX.  col.  21,  D, 
or  in  Max.  Bibl.  Patr.  IV.  302,  F.  —  Phsebadius  (or  Phcebadius)  ia 
another  of  Dr.  Tregelles's  witnesses ;  but  even  the  expression  "  uni- 
genitus Deus  "  does  not  occur  in  his  writings. 

+  De  General.  Verbi  Divini,  ad  Candidum,  c.  16  (unigenitus  Dei 
films)  — Ibid.  c.  20.  —  Advers.  Arium,  Lib.  I.  cc.  2,  4.  —  Ibid.  c.  15 
("  nmgenitus*'  alone).  —  Lib.  IV.  c.  8.  —  Ibid,  c  33  (unigenitus  solus 
filias).  In  Migne's  Patrol.  Tom.  VIII.  col.  1029,  1030,  1041,  1042, 
1050,  1119,  1137,  or  Max.  Bibl.  Patr.  IV.  167,  169,  254,  255,  257, 
282,  289. 

t  De  Joseph,  c.  14,  al.  84.  Opp.  I.  510,  D,  ed.  Benedict.  — De 
Bened.  Patriarch,  c.  11,  ai.  51.  col.  527,  F.  —  In  Luc.  Lib.  I.  c.  25, 
col.  1274,  D.  —  Ibid.  Lib.  II.  c.  12.  col.  1286,  B.  — De  Fide,  Lib.  III. 
c.  3,  al.  24.  Opp.  II.  501,  C.  — De  Spir.  Sanct.  c.  1,  al.  26.  col-  605, 
F.— Epist.  xxii.  c.  5.  col.  875,  E. 

$  De  Trinitate,  Lib.  I  c.  2.  §  5,  in  Migne's  Patrol.  Tom.  XIII 
col  54,  A,  B,  or  Max.  Bibl.  Patr.  V.  642,  F,  G. 

||  In  Joan.  Tract,  xxxi.  c.  3.  —  Tract  xxxv.  c.  5  —  Tract,  xlvii 
c.  3.  —  Opp.  Tom.  III.  P.  II.  col.  1638,  1660,  1734,  ed  Migne. 

T  Apud  Augustinum  contra  Adimant.  c.  9.  $  1.  Opp.  Tom.  VTIL 
tol.  139,  ed.  Migne. 

**  Apud  Augustini  Collat  cum  Maximin.  cc.  13,  18.  Opp.  Tom 
l.  719  et  728,  ed.  Migne. 


466  APPENDIX. 

the  work  against  Virimadus  ascribed  to  Idacius  Clarus 
(A.  D.  385),  three  times;*  Vigilius  of  Tapsa  (A.  D.  484), 
or  the  author,  whoever  he  was,  of  Libri  XII.  de  Trini- 
tate ;  f  Junilius  (A.  D.  550) ;  %  and  Alcuin  (A.  D.  780).  § 

SUCH  is  the  external  evidence  respecting  the  reading  of 
the  passage  in  question.  It  does  not  seem  worth  while  to 
give  a  formal  summary  of  it.  The  preceding  examination 
of  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  does  not  profess  to  be 
exhaustive.  But  it  has  been  pursued  so  far  that  there  is 
no  probability  that  subsequent  investigation  will  add  many 
important  facts,  or  affect  the  general  conclusion  to  which 
we  are  led  by  those  which  have  been  produced. 

It  will  be  observed  that  a  great  majority  of  the  witnesses 
for  the  reading  Qf6s,  whose  locality  can  be  determined,  are 
Alexandrian,  or  belong  to  places  under  Alexandrian  influ- 
ence ;  though  the  Alexandrian  authorities  are  far  from  be- 
ing unanimous  in  support  of  it.||  The  witnesses  on  the  other 
side  are  not  only  much  more  numerous,  but  are  far  more 
widely  diffused,  representing  almost  every  important  part 
of  the  whole  Christian  world.  In  respect  to  antiquity,  we 
have  in  favor  of  the  reading  vlos,  before  the  middle  of  the 

*  Advers.  Virimadum,  in  Max  Bibl.  Patr.  V.  731,  E,  and  740,  B, 
E.  Montfaucon  ascribes  this  work,  and  also  the  first  eight  books  of 
the  one  next  mentioned,  to  Idatius  the  Chronicler  (A.  D.  445). 
See  his  edition  of  Athanasius,  Tom.  II.  pp.  602,  603. 
,  f  De  Trinitate,  Lib.  IV.  in  Max.  Bibl.  Patr.  VIII.  783,  A,  or  in 
Athanasii  Opp.  II.  615,  A,  ed.  Montf. 

J  De  Part.  Div.  Legis,  Lib.  I.  c.  16,  in  Max.  Bibl.  Patr.  X.  342,  H, 
or  Migne's  Patrol.  Tom.  LXVIII.  col.  22,  C. 

§  Comm.  super  Joan,  in  loc.  Opp.  I.  472,  473,  ed.  Froben.  — 
The  passage  referred  to  by  Wetstein,  De  Fide  S.  Trin.  Lib.  I.  c.  12  (al 
13,  al.  14),  has  only  the  expression  "unigenitus  Deus."  Opp.  I.  712. 

||  Thus  the  Philoxenian  or  Harclean  Syriac,  revised  and  collated 
with  two  Greek  manuscripts  at  Alexandria,  A.  D.  616,  has  the  read- 
ing "  God  "  in  the  margin,  but  not  in  the  text 


NOTE    C. 


467 


fourth  century,  —  the  date  assigned  by  Tischendorf  to  our 
oldest  Greek  manuscript  of  the  New  Testament,  —  the 
evidence  of  the  Old  Latin  and  Curetonian  Syriac  versions, 
Doth  belonging  probably  to  the  second  century,  and  that  of 
Hippolytus,  the  third  Synod  of  Antioch,  Alexander  of 
Alexandria,  Eusebius  of  Cresarea,  and  Eustathius  of  An- 
tioch, besides  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  and  the  author  of  the 
"  Discussion  between  Archelaus  and  Manes,"  to  whose  tes- 
timony exception  may  perhaps  be  taken.  During  the 
same  period  we  have  on  the  other  side  only  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  the  Doctrina  Orientalis,  and  the  Coptic  ver- 
sion, with  the  Peshito  Syriac  as  commonly  edited,  if  that 
form  of  the  Syriac  text  is  of  so  early  a  date.  In  the 
period  that  follows,  though  the  four  manuscripts  which 
support  the  reading  Qcos  are  of  the  highest  character,  yet 
the  weight  of  the  whole  evidence  of  manuscripts,  versions, 
and  Fathers  must  certainly  be  regarded  as  greatly  prepon- 
derating against  it. 

LET  us  now  see  what  view  is  to  be  taken  of  the  internal 
evidence.  In  respect  to  this  Dr.  Tregelles  says :  *'  In 
forming  a  judgment  between  these  two  readings,  it  must 
be  remembered  that  p.ovoyfvr)f  would  naturally  suggest  vios 
as  the  word  which  should  follow  it,  whereas  0e6y  strikes 
the  ear  as  something  peculiar,  and  not  elsewhere  occurring 
in  Scripture ;  the  change,  being  but  of  one  letter  (YC  for 
6c),  might  be  most  inadvertently  made;  and  though  the 
evidence  of  the  Latin  versions  and  the  Curetonian  Syriac 
is  not  of  small  weight,  yet  the  same  chance  of  a  change 
would,  in  a  case  of  this  kind,  affect  the  copyists  of  a  version 
(or  indeed  the  translators)  [?]  just  as  much  as  the  tran- 
scribers of  Greek  MSS.  6«k,  as  the  more  difficult  read- 
ing, is  entitled  to  special  attention,"  &c.* 

•  Account  of  the  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  N.  T.,  p.  235. 
44 


468  APPENDIX. 

There  is  some  force  in  these  remarks ;  but  not  so  much 
as  may  at  first  be  thought.  Though  povoyevrjs  Qeos  is  a 
harsh  expression  and  an  unusual  combination  to  us,  it  waa 
not  so  to  copyists  of  the  fourth  century  and  later.  "  The 
only-begotten  God  "  was,  as  we  have  seen,  an  exceedingly 
common  appellation  of  Christ  in  the  writings  of  that  period, 
the  Father  being  distinguished  from  him  as  ayeWqros,  avap- 
X<>s,  ai/amos,  "  unbegotten,  unoriginated,  uncaused."  It  is 
strange  that  Dr.  Tregelles  should  regard  it  as  an  expres- 
sion to  which  the  Arians  of  those  days  would  object.  The 
Arians  did  not  hesitate  to  apply  the  term  Qc6s  or  Deus  to 
Christ,  using  it,  as  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  had  done 
before  them,  in  an  inferior  sense ;  *  and  though  no  example 
of  a  quotation  of  John  i.  18  with  the  reading  Qeos  has  been 
produced  from  any  Arian  writer,  we  find  the  expression 
povoycvri?  Qeos  in  the  so-called  Apostolical  Constitutions 
(seven  times),  in  the  larger  Epistle  of  the  Pseudo-Ignatius 
to  the  Philadelphians,  and  in  the  fragments  which  remain 
to  us  of  the  writings  of  Arius  and  his  followers,  Asterius, 
Eunomius,  and  others,  referred  to  by  Wetstein.  Being  a 
phrase,  then,  so  frequently  used  both  by  the  Catholic  Fa- 
thers and  their  opponents,  transcribers  must  have  been 
very  familiar  with  it.  In  the  passage  in  question  Geoj/  had 
just  preceded,  bringing  Qeos  before  the  mind  of  the  copy- 
ist. The  word  Qeos  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  three 
times  as  often  as  vios.  Is  it  strange,  then,  that  one  or 
more  transcribers,  under  such  circumstances,  should  in- 
advertently substitute  the  more  common  for  the  less  fre- 
quent word,  the  one  differing  from  the  other,  in  the  abbre- 
viated form,  only  in  a  single  letter  ?  And  might  not  this 
mistake  have  been  easily  propagated,  so  as  to  extend  to 
the  comparatively  few  authorities  which  exhibit  the  reading 
Ocfe? 

*  Bee  before,  p.  120,  note. 


NOTE    C.  469 

But  there  is  another  aspect  of  the  internal  evidence,  as 
important  as  th^t  to  which  we  have  just  attended.  "  No 
man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time;  the  only-begotten  God, 
who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him." 
Does  not  every  one  perceive  that  the  introduction  of  the 
phrase  "only-begotten  God,"  after  the  use  of  the  word 
"  God,"  alone  and  absolutely,  immediately  before  it,  is  a 
harshness  which  we  can  hardly  suppose  in  any  writer? 
Does  not  the  word  "  Father,"  in  a  sentence  like  this,  almost 
necessarily  imply  that  the  correlative  "  Son  "  has  just  pre- 
ceded ?  And  is  there  anything  analogous  to  this  expres- 
sion, "  the  only-begotten  God,"  in  the  writings  of  John,  or 
in  any  other  part  of  the  New  Testament  ? 

ONE  can  hardly  believe  that  so  fair-minded  and  impartial 
a  critic  as  Dr.  Tregelles,  after  a  careful  re-examination  of 
the  whole  evidence,  will  regard  himself  as  justified  hi 
introducing  the  reading  novoycvrjs  6eos  into  the  text.  But 
supposing  this  to  be  the  true  reading,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
being  so  designated  is  here  distinguished  in  the  clearest 
manner  from  Him  to  whom  the  name  "  God  "  is  emphati- 
cally and  absolutely  applied;  and  that  the  word  0eos,  in 
this  expression,  must  therefore  be  used  in  an  inferior  sense, 
unless  John  taught  the  existence  of  two  Supreme  Beings. 
It  will  also  strike  every  one,  that  the  title  "  only-begotten 
God  "  is  not  suitable  to  a  being  who  possesses  the  attribute 
of  self-existence. 

In  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  appellation  "only- 
begotten  Son,"  or  "  only  Son,"  repeatedly  given  to  Christ 
in  the  writings  of  St,  John,  it  may  be  sufficient  to  refer  to 
the  remarks  of  Mr.  Norton  in  the  former  part  of  this 
volume.*  The  corresponding  Hebrew  word  is  repeatedly 
rendered  in  the  Septuagint  by  dyairrjros  or 
*  beloved." 

*  See  before,  p.  220. 


470  APPENDIX. 

(5.)  John  iii.  34.  "  For  he  whom  God  hath  sent  speak- 
eth  the  words  of  God ;  for  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by 
measure  unto  him"  ov  yap  eVc  perpov  didaxriv  6  0e<W  TO  irvcvfta. 

Here  6  0eos,  answering  to  the  word  "  God "  in  the  last 
clause,  is  bracketed  by  Lachmann,  and  omitted  by  Tischen- 
dorf,  Meyer,  and  Alford,  as  also  by  Mr.  Norton  ;  Griesbach 
marks  it  as  probably  spurious.  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and 
Alford  suppose  that  6  Geos  (understood)  is  the  subject  of 
dt'dowrt,  so  that  the  omission  would  make  no  difference  in  the 
sense.  Mr.  Norton,  however,  regards  "  He  whom  God  has 
sent,"  the  Messiah,  as  the  subject,  and  translates,  "  He  gives 
not  the  spirit  by  measure."  See  his  note. 

(6.)  Acts  xvi.  7.  "After  they  were  come  to  Mysia, 
they  essayed  to  go  into  Bithynia :  but  the  Spirit  suffered 
them  not." 

Here,  instead  of  TO  Tn/eO/ia,  "the  Spirit,"  the  best  manu 
scripts  and  versions,  with  other  authorities,  read  TO  irvfv^a 
'lijo-oC,  "  the  spirit  of  Jesus."  This  reading  is  adopted  by 
Griesbach,  Knapp,  Schott,  Tittmann,  Vater,  Scholz,  Lach- 
mann, Hahn,  Theile,  Tischendorf,  and  Alford ;  also  by  De 
Wette,  Meyer,  Mr.  Norton,  and  many  others.  See  before, 
p.  225,  et  seqq. 

(7.)  Romans  ix.  5.  "Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of 
whom  as  concerning  the  flesh  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all, 
God  blessed  for  ever.  Amen."  The  Greek  is  as  follows : 
£>v  oi  Trarepes,  KOI  f£  S)V  6  X/HOTOJ  TO  Kara  (rdpua  •  6  &v  «ri  irav- 
Tetv  Geoj,  €v\oyr}Tos  fls  TOVS  alSavas.  'A.p.rjv. 

If  the  remarks  which  have  been  before  made  (pp.  207  - 
212,  note)  on  this  much  controverted  text  are  correct,  the 
original  is  grammatically  ambiguous,  admitting  of  at  least 
three  different  constructions; — 1.  that  of  the  Common 
Version,  according  to  which  the  last  clause,  6  &v  eVi  irdvrau>, 


NOTE    C.  471 

etc.,  refers  to  Christ ;  —  2.  that  of  Mr.  Norton,  according 
to  which  it  relates  to  God,  the  Apostle,  in  enumerating  the 
privileges  of  the  Jews,  mentioning  as  their  last  great  dis- 
tinction the  fact  that  God  himself  had  presided  over  all 
their  concerns  in  a  particular  manner ;  (the  literal  render- 
ing of  the  words  being,  "  He  who  was  over  all  [was]  God, 
blessed  for  ever";)  —  and  3.  that  of  many  eminent  Ger- 
man critics,  who  regard  the  clause  as  a  doxology,  transit  t- 
ing,  "  God,  who  is  over  all,  be  blessed  for  ever." 

This  passage  cannot,  with  strict  propriety,  be  introduced 
here,  as  there  are  no  various  readings  of  any  consequence ; 
but  as  involving  a  question  of  punctuation,  it  is  not  wholly 
unconnected  with  the  subject  of  this  note.  It  has  already 
been  mentioned,  that  the  punctuation  adopted  by  Mr.  Norton 
and  many  other  interpreters,  as  well  as  by  Lachmann  and 
Tischendorf  among  the  critical  editors,  is  found  not  only  in 
some  manuscripts  in  cursive  letters,  but  also  in  the  cele- 
brated Ephrem  manuscript.  I  have  since  observed  that  a 
stop  is  also  placed  after  capita  in  the  Alexandrine  manu- 
script, as  edited  by  Woide.  The  Alexandrine  and  Ephrem 
manuscripts  are  the  two  oldest  Greek  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament  in  which  there  is  any  kind  of  punctuation, 
the  Vatican  having  no  stops  a  primd  manu.  The  single 
point,  or  very  short  line,  used  hi  the  earliest  manuscripts 
where  any  marks  of  this  kind  appear,  denotes  a  pause 
sometimes  answering  in  length  only  to  our  comma,  but 
usually  equivalent  to  a  colon  or  a  period.  Manuscript 
authority  in  a  case  of  this  kind  is  really  of  no  impor- 
tance ;  but  some  writers  have  laid  stress  on  the  supposed 
want  of  it  as  an  objection  to  the  punctuation  adopted  by 
Mr.  Norton. 

The  orthodox  Fathers  who  have  quoted  the  passage,  and 
the  authors  of  the  ancient  versions,  refer  the  clause  to 
Christ ;  but  it  is  not  strange  that  they  should  give  to  am- 

44* 


472  APPENDIX. 

biguous  language  the  interpretation  most  favorable  to  their 
theological  opinions. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  mention,  that  Mr.  Jowett,  now 
Regius  Professor  of  Greek  in  the  University  of  Oxford,  in 
his  recent  work  on  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Thessalo- 
nians,  Galatians,  and  Romans,  adopts  the  punctuation  of 
Lachmann  and  Tischendorf,  and  translates,  "  God,  who  is 
over  all,  is  blessed  for  ever.  Amen." 

But  supposing  it  to  have  been  shown  that  the  last  part . 
of  this  verse  may  grammatically  refer  to  God  as  well  as  to 
Christ,  is  there  any  philological  reason,  it  may  be  asked, 
for  preferring  the  former  construction  to  the  latter?  In 
respect  to  this  point,  one  who  has  any  doubt  on  the  subject 
may  examine  the  use  of  the  word  Qeos,  "  God,"  first  in  this 
Epistle,  and  then  in  the  other  Epistles  of  St.  Paul ;  noting 
the  examples,  if  he  can  discover  any,  in  which  it  is  applied 
to  Christ,  and  also  those  in  which  it  is  applied  to  a  being 
clearly  distinguished  from  Christ,  as  in  1  Corinthians  iii.  23  ; 
viii.  6 ;  xi.  3  ;  xv.  24,  28 ;  1  Timothy  ii.  5,  &c.  He  will 
find  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  not  including  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  more  than  Jive  hundred  instances  of  the  use  of 
the  word  in  question ;  and  he  will  also  find,  I  believe,  that 
there  is  not  among  them  all  a  single  clear  and  unequivocal 
example  of  its  application  to  Christ.  But  if  this  be  the 
case,  the  presumption  is  very  strong  that  it  is  not  so  applied 
here.  The  argument  rests,  it  will  be  perceived,  not  on  the 
inconsistency  of  the  Trinitarian  construction  with  the  the- 
ology of  St.  Paul  as  gathered  from  his  other  writings,  — 
that  is  another  weighty  consideration,  —  but  on  its  incon- 
sistency with  his  habitual  or  uniform  use  of  language. 

(8.)  Romans  xiv.  10.  "  For  we  shall  all  stand  before 
the  judgment-seat  of  Christ." 

Here,  instead  of  XptoroC,  "Christ,"  the   reading  9«w, 


NOTE    C.  473 

u God"  is  adopted  by  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Alford,  and 
Tregelles,  as  also  by  Meyer  and  others.  It  is  to  be  ob- 
served, that  the  Vatican  and  Ephrem  manuscripts  agree 
with  the  other  leading  uncial  manuscripts  in  the  latter 
reading,  though  this  fact  was  not  known  to  Griesbach  and 
Scholz. 

Supposing  the  common  reading  to  be  correct,  some  Trini- 
tarians have  inferred  the  deity  of  Christ  from  a  comparison 
of  this  verse  with  the  two  following.  In  respect  to  this 
point,  it  may  be  sufficient  to  refer  to  Acts  xvii.  31 ;  Ro- 
mans ii.  16.  See  also  before,  p.  68,  note,  and  p.  285. 

(9.)  Romans  xv.  29.  "And  I  am  sure  that,  when  I 
come  unto  you,  I  shall  come  in  the  fulness  of  the  blessing 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ." 

The  words  TOV  fi/ayyf\iov  TOV,  corresponding  to  "  of  the 
gospel,"  are  bracketed  by  Vater  as  doubtful,  and  are  omit- 
ted by  Griesbach,  Schott,  Scholz,  Lachmann,  Theile,  Tisch- 
endorf, Alford,  Tregelles,  and  Meyer.  De  Wette  regards 
them  as  probably  spurious. 

(10.)  Romans  xv.  32.  "That  I  may  come  to  you  with 
joy  by  the  will  of  God,"  dta  6f\rjp.aTog  6eov. 

Lachmann  reads  dia  QcXfoaTos  Kvpiov  'Iijo-ov,  "  by  the  will 
of  the  Lord  Jesus."  This  reading  is  supported  by  only  one 
manuscript,  the  Vatican ;  though  a  few  authorities  have 
the  words  XptoroO  'lijo-ov,  "  Christ  Jesus,"  instead  of  6eov, 
«  God." 

(11.)  1  Corinthians  x.  9.  "Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ, 
as  some  of  them  also  tempted,"  &c. 

Here,  for  ri>v  Xpioroi/,  "  Christ,"  or  "  the  Anointed  One," 
the  reading  TOV  Kvpiov,  "  the  Lord,"  is  adopted  by  Lach- 
mann, Meyer,  and  Alford,  as  al«o  by  Wetstein,  Aretbishop 


474  APPENDIX. 

Newcomo,  Riickeit,  Norton,  and  others.  Griesbach  (in 
his  manual  edition)  and  Knapp  mark  it  as  of  equal  author- 
ity with  X/>IOTOI>.  Compare  Griesbach's  Symbolae  Criticae, 
II.  114. 

"As  some  of  them  also  tempted,"  KaQas  Kal  rives  avr&v 
eireipaa-av.  Kcu,  "  also,"  is  omitted  by  Lachmann,  Tischen- 
dorf,  Meyer,  and  Alford,  is  marked  by  Griesbach  as  proba- 
bly spurious,  and  bracketed  by  Vater. 

Archbishop  Newcome  observes,  "  If  we  read  Xpurrov,  the 
sense  is,  '  Nor  let  us  tempt,  try,  prove,  provoke  Christ 
now,  as  some  of  them  did  God  at  that  time.'  "  The  pas- 
sage is  thus  understood  by  many  Trinitarian  commen- 
tators; but  others,  supplying  the  word  "him"  instead  of 
"  God "  after  "  tempted,"  suppose  that  Paul  represents 
Christ  as  the  being  described  in  Numbers  xxi.  5,  6,  as 
tempted  by  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness. 

(12.)  1  Corinthians  xv.  47.  "The  second  man  is  the 
Lord  from  heaven." 

*O  Kvpios,  "  the  Lord,"  is  here  marked  by  Griesbach  as 
probably  spurious,  bracketed  by  Vater.  and  omitted  by 
Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Meyer,  and  Aiibnl,  as  also  by 
Kiickert,  De  Wette,  Mr.  Norton,  and  others. 

(13.)  2  Corinthians  iv.  14.  "  Knowing  that  he  which 
raised  up  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  raise  up  us  also  by  Jesus." 

Instead  of  Sta  'IJJCTOV,  "  by  Jesus,"  the  reading  avv  'iqo-oi;, 
"with  Jesus,"  is  adopted  by  Lachmann,  Theile.  Tischen- 
dorf, Meyer,  Alford,  Riickert,  and  De  Wette. 

(14.)  Ephesians  iii.  9.  "  God,  who  created  all  things 
by  Jesus  Christ." 

The  words  Sta  'I^o-oO  XpioroO,  "by  Jesus  Christ,"  are 
marked  by  Knapp  and  Vater  as  doubtful,  and  are  rejected 


NOTE    C. 


475 


Dy  Griesbach,  Schott,  Tittmann,  Scholz,  Lachmann,  Hahn, 
Theile,  Tischendorf,  Olshausen,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Mr. 
Norton,  and  others. 

(15.)  Ephesians  v.  21.  "Submitting  yourselves  one  to 
another  in  the  fear  of  God,"  fv  $o/3o>  Gtov. 

The  reading  *V  <f>6pcp  Xp«rrov,  " in  the  fear  of  Christ"  is 
adopted  by  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Schott,  Tittmann,  Vater, 
Scholz,  Lachmann,  Hahn,  Theile,  Tischendorf,  Meyer, 
and  De  Wette. 

(1 6.)  Philippians  iii.  3.  "  For  we  are  the  circum 
clsion,  which  worship  God  in  the  spirit,"  ol  irvevfian  6e£ 
\arpfvovres. 

Matthaei,  Scholz,  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Meyer,  and 
Wiesinger  read  Geov  for  0f£.  So  also  Wetstein.  Sup- 
posing this  reading  to  be  genuine,  the  literal  translation 
will  be,  "who  worship  (or  pay  religious  service)  in  (or 
through)  the  Spirit  of  God."  The  words  also  grammati- 
cally admit  of  the  rendering,  "  who  worship  the.  Spirit  of 
God";  and  so  Granville  Sharp  translates.*  But  this 
interpretation  introduces  an  idea  so  foreign  from  the  con- 
text, to  mention  no  other  objection,  that  Mr.  Sharp  has  had 
few,  if  any,  followers. 

(17.)  Philippians  iv.  13.  "I  can  do  all  things  through 
Christ  which  strengthened  me." 

The  word  Xp«rr<j>,  "  Christ,"  is  bracketed  as  doubtful  by 
Knapp  and  Vater,  and  omitted  by  Griesbach,  Schott, 
Scholz,  Lachmann,  Theile,  Tischendorf,  Meyer,  Conybeare 
and  Howson,  and  others.  If  it  is  omitted,  the  translation 
will  be,  "  I  can  do  (or  bear)  all  things  through  Him  who 
strengthens  me." 

•  Remarks  on  the  Uses  of  the  Definitive  Article,  &c.,  pp.  33, 34, 3d  ed. 


476  APPENDIX. 

(18.)  Colossians  ii.  2,  3.  "  To  the  acknowledgment  o! 
the  mystery  of  God,  and  of  the  Father,  and  of  Christ ;  in 
whom  are  hid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge," 
els  fTriyvaHriv  TOV  p.vo~Trjpiov  TOV  Qeov  Kai  TraTpbs  KOI  TOV  Xpiorov, 
tv  o>  eioH  irdvres  ol  8rjo~avpol  TTJS  aro<pias  KOI  rfjs  yv<b<rfo>s  air6- 
Kpv<poi. 

The  words  KOI  irarpbs  KOI  TOV  X/HOTOV,  "  and  of  the  Father, 
and  of  Christ,"  are  marked  as  doubtful  by  Knapp,  and 
omitted  by  Griesbach,  Schott,  Scholz,  Lachmann,  Tischen- 
dorf,  Olshausen,  De  Wette,  Conybeare  and  Howson,  Pro- 
fessor Eadie,  Mr.  Norton  (see  p.  297),  and  others. 

Lachmann,  Meyer,  Steiger,  Huther,  and  Granville  Penn 
adopt  the  reading  TOV  p,vo~Trjpiov  TOV  Qeov  Xpiorov,  which  ad- 
mits, grammatically,  of  different  interpretations.  It  may 
mean,  1.  "of  the  mystery  of  the  God  of  Christ'*  (comp. 
Ephes.  i.  17)  ;  so  Huther  and  Meyer;  or,  2.  "of  the  mys- 
tery of  God,  namely,  Christ,"  the  word  "  Christ"  being  in 
apposition  with ."  mystery "  (comp.  Col.  i.  27).  Steiger 
understands  Xpiorov  to  be  in  apposition  with  Geov,  but,  to 
justify  his  interpretation,  the  Greek,  as  De  Wette  and 
Olshausen  remark,  should  be  TOV  Xpiorov  Geov,  and  not  TOV 

Q(OV  XptOTOV. 

Theile  reads,  TOV  iwtmjpiov  TOV  Qeov  iraTpbs  TOV  Xpiorov, 
u  of  the  mystery  of  God,  the  Father  of  Christ." 

Whichever  of  these  readings  is  genuine,  eV  w,  "  in  whom," 
or  "  in  which,"  in  the  last  clause,  should  probably  be  under- 
stood as  referring  to  ^vo-T^ptov.  So  Grotius,  Hammond, 
Bengel,  Schleusner,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  others  explain 
the  words,  and  Professor  Eadie  translates,  —  "  to  the  full 
knowledge  of  the  mystery  of  God,  in  which  all  the  treas- 
ures of  wisdom  and  knowledge  are  laid  up." 

The  meaning  of  the  word  translated  "  mystery "  in  the 
Common  Version  would  be  better  conveyed  to  most  read* 
ers  by  the  term  "  new  doctrine,"  or  "  new  religion." 


NOTE    C.  477 

.)  Colossians  iii.  13.     "Even  as  Christ  forgave  you, 
so  also  do  ye." 

Here,  instead  of  6  Xpioros,  "  Christ,"  the  reading  6  KV/HOV, 
"the  Lord,"  is  adopted  by  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Ols- 
hausen,  and  Meyer. 

(20.)  Colossians  iii.  15.  "And  let  the  peace  of  God 
rule  in  your  hearts." 

"  The  peace  of  Christ  "  is  the  reading  adopted  by  Gries- 
bach,  Knapp,  Schott,  Tittmann,  Vater,  Scholz,  Lachmann, 
Hahn,  Theile,  Tischendorf,  Meyer,  and  De  Wette. 

(21.)  2  Thessalonians  ii.  8.  "Whom  the  Lord  shall 
consume  with  the  breath  of  his  mouth." 

For  6  Kvpios,  "  the  Lord,"  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Tittmann, 
Schott  (in  his  3d  ed.,  1825),  Scholz,  Lachmann,  Hahn, 
Theile,  and  Liinemann  read  6  nvptos  'Irjo-ovs,  "the  Lord 
Jesus."  But  Matthaei,  Pelt,  Schott  (in  his  Commentary, 
1834),  Tischendorf,  De  Wette,  and  others,  retain  the  com- 
mon reading,  regarding  'tyo-ov*  as  a  gloss. 


(22.)  1  Peter  iii.  15.  «  But  sanctify  the  Lord  God  in 
your  hearts." 

Here,  instead  of  Gcov,  "  God,"  the  .  reading  Xpioroi>, 
"  Christ,"  is  adopted  by  Lachmann,  Theile,  Tischendorf, 
Tregelles,  and  Huther.  Tregelles  argues  from  this  reading 
as  compared  with  Isaiah  viii.  12,  13,  that  "  the  expression 
*  Jehovah  of  Hosts  himself  in  the  prophet  finds  its  New 
Testament  exposition  as  an  equivalent  in  Kvpiov  TOV  Xpioroif, 
'  the  Lord  Christ/  thus  marking  the  divine  glory  of  our 
Lord  in  the  most  emphatic  manner."*  But  nothing  is 
more  common  than  for  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
to  borrow  the  language  of  the  Old  to  express  their  own 

*  Accoum  of  the  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament, 
p.  335 


478  APPENDIX. 

thoughts,  and  thus  to  apply  it  to  very  different  subjects 
from  those  to  which  it  relates  in  its  original  connection 
See,  for  example,  1  Peter  ii.  9,  comp.  Exodus  xix.  6 ;  — 
Romans  x.  6  —  8,  comp.  Deut.  xxx.  12-14; — Romans 
x.  18,  comp.  Psalm  xix.  4. 

(23.)  1  John  iii.  16.  "  Hereby  perceive  we  the  love  of 
God,  because  he  laid  down  his  life  for  us." 

Here  the  words  TOV  Geoi),  "  of  God,"  are  rejected  as  spu- 
rious by  all  modern  editors.  They  are  found,  so  far  as  is 
known,  only  in  one  Greek  manuscript,  and  in  the  Latin 
Vulgate  version.  In  most  editions  of  the  Common  Version 
they  are  now  printed  in  Italics ;  but  they  are  not  so  distin- 
guished in  the  original  edition  of  1611.  Our  translators 
followed  Beza  and  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  in  reading 
TOV  Qeov. 

(24.)  Jude  4.  "  Denying  the  only  Lord  God,  and  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  rbv  pavov  dfa-no-njv  Qtbv  KOI  Kvpiov  ^/j.5>v 

^l.TJO'OVV  XplCTTOI'  dpVOVfMfVOl. 

Supposing  the  common  text  to  be  correct,  Granville 
Sharp  would  render,  "  Denying  our  only  Master,  God,  and 
Lord,  Jesus  Christ."  (See  before,  p.  199,  note.)  But  the 
word  Geoi/,  "  God,"  is  omitted  by  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Schott, 
Tittmann,  Vater,  Scholz,  Lachmann,  Hahn,  Theile,  Tisch- 
endorf,  Huther,  De  Wette,  and  others.  We  may  then 
translate,  "  Denying  the  only  Sovereign  Lord,  and  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Compare  Norton's  Evidences  of  the 
Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  Vol.  II.  p.  166. 

(25.)  Jude  5.  "The  Lord,  having  saved  the  people  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt,  afterward  destroyed  them  that  be- 
lieved not." 

For  6  Kvpios,  "  the  Lord,"  the  reading  6  'tyo-oOs,  "  Jesus," 
is  Adopted  by  Lachmann,  and  favored  by  Huther. 


NOTE    C.  479 

(26.)  Jude  ?5.  "To  the  only  wise  God  our  ISavioui, 
be  glory  and  majesty,  dominion  and  power,"  &c. 

Here  the  word  o-o$<p,  "  wise,"  is  omitted,  and  the  words 
ftia  'ITJOXH)  Xpiorou  rov  KvpLov  fjp.S)v  are  inserted  after  JJLOVCO  0cw 
wnipi  T)p.£>v,  by  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Schott,  Tittmann,  Vater, 
Scholz,  Lachmann,  Hahn,  Theile,  Tischendorf,  Huther, 
De  Wette,  and  others.  The  passage  may  then  be  trans- 
lated, "  To  the  only  God  our  Saviour,  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord,  be  glory  and  majesty,  dominion  and  power,"  &C. 
See  before,  p.  305,  note. 

(27.)  Revelation  i.  8.  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the 
beginning  and  the  ending,  saith  the  Lord,"  &c. 

Instead  of  6  /cvptos,  "  the  Lord,"  Kvpios  6  6eos,  "  the  Lord 
God,"  is  adopted  by  all  the  modern  critical  editors  who 
have  been  mentioned  in  this  note,  and  even  by  Bloomfield, 
who  also  remarks,  "By  most  recent  commentators  these 
words  are  understood  of  God  the  Father"  He  himself, 
however,  explains  them  as  referring  to  Christ.  Professor 
Stuart  observes,  in  his  note  on  the  passage,  that  "the 
weight  of  external  testimony  is  greatly  in  favor  of  Kvptot 
6  0eos,"  and  that,  admitting  this  reading,  "  it  is  more  facile 
to  regard  God  as  the  speaker." 

The  words,  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,"  are  explained  hi 
ch.  xxi.  6  and  xxii.  13  by  "  the  beginning  and  the  end," 
"the  First  and  the  Last."  (The  words  translated  "the 
beginning  and  the  ending "  in  the  present  passage  are  an 
interpolation.)  Compare  Isaiah  xli.  4 ;  xliv.  6 ;  xlviii.  12. 
These  expressions  have  been  variously  interpreted ;  by  some, 
as  denoting  eternity,  or  unchangeableness ;  —  but  "  the  be- 
ginning and  the  end  "  can  hardly  mean  "  without  beginning 
and  without  end  " ;  —  by  others,  as  signifying  completeness, 
or  perfection.  Here,  and  in  ch.  xxi.  6,  where  they  are 
also  applied  to  God,  they  seem  rather  used  to  denote  the 
45 


480  APPENDIX. 

certain  accomplishment  of  his  purposes ;  that  what  he  has 
begun  he  will  carry  on  to  its  consummation.  Thus  Heng- 
stenberg  remarks :  "  The  emphasis  is  to  be  laid  upon  the 
Omega.  It  is  as  much  as :  I  am  as  the  Alpha,  therefore 
also  the  Omega.  The  beginning  is  surety  for  the  end."  * 

The  words  in  question  may  be  understood  in  a  similar 
manner  when  applied  to  Christ,  as  in  ch.  xxii.  13 ;  comp. 
i.  17,  ii.  8.  Thus  Erasmus  remarks  in  his  note  on  John 
viii.  25,  as  cited  by  Wilson  in  his  Concessions  of  Trinita- 
rians :  "  Christ  is  called  the  beginning  and  the  end,  because 
he  is  the  beginning  and  the  consummation  of  the  Church, 
which  was  founded  by  his  first,  and  will  be  completed  by 
his  second  appearance."  f  So  one  of  the  Latin  Fathers, 
Fulgentius,  says,  though  he  gives  other  meanings  to  the 
words :  "  Principium  Christus,  quia  ipse  inchoavit  perfici- 
enda ;  finis  Christus,  quia  ipse  perficit  inchoata  "  ;  that  is, 
"  Christ  is  the  beginning,  because  he  himself  commenced 
the  work  to  be  accomplished;  Christ  is  the  end,  because 
he  accomplishes  the  work  begun."  J  It  is,  perhaps,  in  a 
somewhat  similar  sense  that  he  is  called  by  the  author  of 
jhe  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  "  the  Author  and  Finisher  of 
the  faith,"  6  r^js  Trio-Tews  dpxrjybs  KOI  TeXeicorijs.  § 

(28.)  Revelation  i.  11.  "I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the 
First  and  the  Last;  and,  What  thou  seest,  write  in  a 
book,"  &c. 

Here,  the  words  which  precede  "  What  thou  seest "  are 
rejected  as  spurious  by  all  the  modern  critical  editors. 

*  "The  Revelation  of  St.  John,  expounded,"  &c.,  Vol.  I.  p.  107, 
Vmer.  ed.  of  the  Engl.  translation. 

t  Opp.  Tom.  VI.  col.  376,  E. 

$  Ad  Trasimundum,  Lib.  II.  c.  5 ;  in  Migne's  Patrol  Tom.  LXV, 
ol  250,  C. 

t  Hebrews  xii.  2. 


NOTE    C.  481 

Dr.  Doddridge  observes,  in  his  note  on  this  verse :  "  That 
titles  ["  Alpha  and  Omega,"  &c.]  should  be  repeated 
so  soon,  in  a  connection  which  demonstrates .  that  they  are 
given  to  Christ,  will  appear  very  remarkable,  whatever 
sense  be  given  to  the  eighth  verse.  The  argument  drawn  in 
the  preceding  note  upon  it  would  have  been  strong,  wher 
ever  such  a  passage  as  this  had  been  found ;  but  its  imme- 
diate connection  with  this  greatly  strengthens  it.  And  I 
cannot  forbear  recording  it,  that  this  text  has  done  more 
than  any  other  in  the  Bible  toward  preventing  me  from 
giving  in  to  that  scheme,  which  would  make  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  no  more  than  a  deified  creature." 

It  is  a  pity  that  this  excellent  man  did  not  take  a  little 
more  pains  to  distinguish  the  genuine  text  of  Scripture 
from  the  corruptions  introduced  by  transcribers. 

(29.)  Revelation  ii.  7.  "  To  him  that  overcometh  will  I 
give  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  life,  which  is  hi  the  midst  of  the 
paradise  of  God." 

Instead  of  TOW  eeov,  "  of  God,"  the  reading  TOV  6«w  /now, 
"of  my  God,"  is  marked  by  Vater  as  probable,  and  is 
adopted  by  Matthaei,  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Schott,  Tittmann, 
Scholz,  and  Tischendorf. 

(30.)  Revelation  iii.  2.  "I  have  not  found  thy  works 
perfect  before  God,"  cvwriov  rov  0«w. 

Here  the  reading  ivwriov  TOV  Qcov  fiov,  "  before  my  God," 
is  marked  by  Vater  (in  his  note  on  ch.  ii.  7)  as  probable, 
and  is  received  into  the  text  as  genuine  by  all  the  other 
critical  editors  of  the  present  century  who  have  been  men- 
tioned in  this  note. 

THIS  completes  the  view  proposed  of  passages  whose 
supposed  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  affected 


482  APPENDIX. 

by  various  readings  of  the  original  text.  I  refer,  it  will  be 
understood,  to  readings  which  have  been  adopted  in  any 
of  the  leading  critical  editions  published  within  the  present 
century.  In  a  large  majority  of  these  passages,  the  varia- 
tion of  reading  seems  to  me  to  be  of  little  or  no  conse- 
quence, so  far  as  the  doctrine  in  question  is  concerned; 
but  I  wished  to  include  all  where  it  had  been,  or  might 
be,  thought  of  any  importance.  I  have  certainly  endeav- 
ored to  omit  nothing  which  a  Trinitarian  might  regard  as 
favoring  hie  belief. 


INDEX 

TO 

PASSAGES   OF   SCRIPTURE    QUOTED    UK   KB 
FERRED  TO, 


GENESIS. 

6  22  

Page 

300,  n. 
814,  n. 
344 
343 
238 
•343 
211,  n. 

800,  n. 
219,  n. 
300,  n. 
218,  n. 
237 
478 
300,  n. 
300,  n. 

474 

182 

800,  n. 
255,  n. 
255,  n. 
478 
256,  n. 

800,  n. 

218,  n. 
237 
217,  n. 
300,  n. 

219,  n. 

2  KINGS. 

xiii.  5  

305% 

219,  n. 
219,  n. 
218,  n. 

305,  n. 

800,  n. 
478 
180 
92 
302,  n. 
300,  n. 
210,  n. 
217,  n. 
390 
301,  ft. 
221,  n. 
214 
217,  n. 
800,  n. 
300,  n. 
800,  n. 
237 

811 
811 

856 
92 

218,  n. 

91 

25  

1  CHRONICLES. 

xvii  13 

7    

v.  2,  3  

viii.,  xix  841- 

xvii.  29  

NEHEMIAH. 
IX.  27  

EXODUS. 

r.  22  

PSALMS. 

viii  5  

ii.  1   

xiv.  31     
xv  13  17    

xix  6.    ....... 

xxxvii.  11    

xxi.  6  
xxii.  8,  9,  28    

NUMBERS. 

xxi.  6,  6  

xlv.  1  
xlv.  6,  7   .    .  800,  n.  301,  n. 
1.1       

Ixviii.  19(lxvii.20,Sept.)   . 
Ixxii.  18,  19      

DEUTERONOMY. 

vi.  4    

Ixxviii.  23-25  

Ixxxii.  1,  6  .    .    .      300,  n. 

x.  17  
xi  13-15    

cii.  25  
cv.  4    
cxix.  46  
cxxxvi  2     ...... 

xxix  266     .    .    .    .    . 

xxx   12-14      

xxxi.  22,  23      

JOSHUA. 

xxii.  22    

1   SAMUEL. 

xii.  18      
xv.  28      

cxxxviii   1  4    .     •     .    •     . 

PROVERBS. 
i.  20     

iit.  19  

viii.  22     .    .       811,835,  n. 

xxv.  32,  83  

xxiv.  21  

S   SAMUEL. 

Yii.  U      

45  « 

ECCLESIASTES. 

iv.  12  

484 


INDEX  TO  PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


ISAIAH.  Page 

Vi.  3 182 

vi.  10 298,  299 

vii.  14 255 

viii.  12, 13 477 

ix.  6     '.    .    .    .  182,  300,  n.  301,  n. 

xiii.  9, 10 278,  n. 

xix.  20 305,  n. 

xxxiv.  4 279,  n. 

xl.  3 253 

xli.  4 .  <79 

xliii.  11 305 

xliv.  6 479 

xlviii.12 479 

xlix.  1 .237 

JEREMIAH. 

i.  5 246 

XV.  9 279,  n. 

EZEKIEL. 

xxxi.  11 300,  n. 

xxxii.  7,  8 278,  n. 

xxxii.  21 301,  n. 

DANIEL. 

xi.  36 300,  n. 

HOSEA. 

iii.6 217,  n. 

xi.l    .    .    .    .         ...  219,  n. 

JOEL 

li.  30,  31 279,  n. 

Hi.  15  .......  279,  n. 

AMOS. 

viii.  9 279,  n. 

OBAPIAH. 

21 305,  n. 

MALA  CHI. 

in.  1          253 


Xi.13  . 


217,  n. 


WISDOM  OF  SOLOMON. 

vii.,  viii.,  x 311 

ix.  1, 2 310,311 

xviii.  16 310 

ECCLESIASTICUS. 

xxiy.  21  250 


MATTHEW.  PagO 

i.  23 255 

ii.  2,  8,  11 447 

iii.  3 .    .   253 

iii.  11  ..  .  .   217,  a 

iv.  17 176 

v.  3      ...    .163,  n.  177-179 

v.  4,  5 179, 180 

v.  45 220 

viii.  2 447 

IK.  18 447 

x.  34 270 

xi.  10 253 

xi.  18  .    .     , 143 

xi.  27 209 

xiii.  39 421 

xiv.  33 447 

xv.  25 447 

xvi.  19 145 

xvi.  27 306,  n, 

xvi.  27, 28     .         .     .     274,281 

xvii.  17 425, 426 

xviii.  18 145 

xviii.  19,  20  ...  223,  224,  273 

xviii.  26 447 

xix.  16,  17    .    .    .    .     445, 446 

xix.  28 292 

xx.  20 447 

xx.  23 292 

xx.  28 145,193 

xxiii.  14 433 

xxiv.  5 243 

xxiv.  26,  27 278 

xxiv.  30 403,  n 

xxiv.  34 280 

xxiv.  37-39 398,  n. 

xxiv.  42-51     .    .     277,  n.  398,  n. 

x^iv.  43,  44 397,  n. 

xxv.     .....     280,281 

xxvii.35 433 

xxviii.  9, 17 447 

xxviii.  18      ....  69,  n.  280 
xxviii.  19      .     .     215-218,284 

MARK. 

i.  2,  3 253 

iv.  33 411 

v.  6 447 

vi.  3 75,  248 

vi.  11  .     .     , 433 

viii.  38 306,  n. 

x.  17,  18 446 

x.  44 193 

xiii.  6 243 

xiii.  32 61 

xv.  19 447 

xvi.  19     ....         .    .  456,  n 


INDEX    TO    PASSAGES    OF    SCRIPTURE. 


485 


LURK  Page 

i.  16,  17 254 

!.  82,  35   .......    221,  n. 

i.  47 305,  n. 

i.  76 253 

lii.  4 253 

vi.  20 162,  n.  178 

vi.  35 220,  n. 

vii.  27 263 

ix.  26 218,  n.  306,  n. 

ix.  55,  66 433 

x.  18 420 

xii.  49 270 

xiii.  1 413 

xiv.  10 448 

xiv.  26 144 

xvii.  20,21   ....     275,423 

xvii.  36 433 

xviii.  18,  19 446 

xviii.  31-34     .    .    .     422,423 

xxi.  8 243 

xxi.34,35 398,  n. 

xxii.  43,  44 446 

xxiv.  21 895 

xxiv.  62 446,447 

JOHK. 

1. 1   .    .    .66, 120,  n.  807,  etc. 
317,  etc.  385 

i.  1-18 324-326 

i.  14 220,  313,  n. 

i.  18 448-469 

i.23 253 

i.  61  (al.  62) 274 

iii.  2 391 

iii.  12,  13 246,391 

iii.  16-21 220,  n. 

iii.  17-19    ....     270,271 

iii.  28 243,  n. 

iii.  31 207,  n.  391 

iii.  34 470 

iii.  35 69,  n. 

iv.  26 243,  n. 

v.  3,  4 433 

v.  16-80      .     .      256,258-268 

v.  17 260 

v.  19 71 

v.  21 261 

v.  22    .    .     .   66,  69,  n.  261,  262 

V.  24 262,263 

V.  26 264,265 

v.  26 70 

v.  27 69,  n.  265 

v.  28,  29 267,  268 

v.  30 61 

v.  86 71 

V.  45 261,  262 

ri  16 245,  n.  247 


JOHN  (continued).    Page 

vi.  30,  31 279 

vi.  31-33,35,38   .     .     247,248 

vi.  38 391 

vi.  41,  42 248 

vi.  46 207,  n 

vi.  47-51 249 

vi.  61  -  63     .    .    .     .     182,  250 

vi.  53 151.159,181 

vi.  67 71,  456,  n. 

vi.  59  -  62 251 

vi.  61,  62 885 

vi.  62 248 

vi.  63 252,  330,  n. 

vi.  64,  68 330,  n. 

vii.  27 72,  n. 

vii.  63-viii.  11.    .    .    .    .   445 

viii.  24 244 

viii.  24, 28 243 

viii.  28,  29 71 

viii.  44 420, 421 

viii.  47 207,  n. 

viii.  62,  63 242 

viii.  64 70 

viii.  66 299 

viii.  66-68  ....    242-246 

ix.  2 413 

ix.  28,  29 235 

ix.  38 447 

x.  16 237,  271 

x.  80 92,  n.  144 

x.  34-36 301,  n. 

x.  36 221,  n. 

x.  87 71 

xi.  25,  26 271 

xi.  26 151,  263 

xii.  17 207,  n. 

xii.  27 78 

xii.  32 271 

xii.  40, 41     ....     298,299 

xii.  47,48 262 

xii.  49,  50 71,271 

xiii.  19 243,  5. 

xiv.  2,3 272,273 

xiv.  8 413 

xiv.  9 245 

xiv.  10 71 

xiv.  18, 19 272 

xiv.  24 71 

xiv.  28 61 

xv.  27 830,  n. 

xvi.  4 830,  n. 

xvi.  17-19 77,  230,  a 

xvi.  23 230 

xvi.  30 78 

xvii 61 

xvii.  1 88 

xvii.  1-6      .  ...    240 


486 


INDEX    TO    PASSAGES    OF    SCRIPTURE. 


JOHN  (continued).  Page 

xvii.  3 198 

xvii.  6 65,  392 

xvii.  11 93,  n. 

xvii.  21-23 93,  n. 

xvii.  22 240 

xvii.  23 241 

xvii.  24     .    .     .     .240,241,392 

xviii.  36 423 

xx.  28 299-304 

xx.  29 303,  n. 

xx.  31 303,  n. 

xxi.  20-23  .     .    .     .    393,  394 

ACTS. 

i.  6,  7 395 

ii.  22-24 79 

ii.  36 69,  n. 

iv.  32 93,  n. 

v.  20 330,  n. 

vii.  59 224 

viii.  37 433 

ix.  5 433 

ix.  14,  21 228 

x.  42 69,  n. 

xiii.  25 243,  n. 

xiii.  30-37 209,  n. 

xiv.  15 292 

xv.  28 218,  n. 

xvi.  6-10    .     .    .     .     226, 227,  n. 

xvi.  7 470 

xvii.  26 325,  n. 

xvii.  31    .    68,  69,  n.  209,  n.  473 

xviii.  15 277 

xix.  9,  10           225,  n. 

xx.  28,     ....  159,  184,  201,  n. 

xx.  32.    .     - 217,  n. 

xxii.  16 228 

xxii.  17,  seqq 225 

xxiii.  8 417 

xxiv.  6-8 433 

xxiv.  11 225,  n. 

xxv.  19 277 

ROMANS. 

LI -4 209,  n. 

ii.  16 69,  n.  473 

iii.  25 455,  n. 

iv.  5 159 

iv.  16, 17 239 

iv.  18-20 239,  n. 

iv.  24 209,  n. 

vi.  3 217,  n. 

vi.  4 209,  n. 

viii.  2 330,  n. 

viii.  5,  8   . 207,  n. 

viii.  9-11 268 

viii.  11      ...         .  209,  n. 


ROMANS  (continued).  Page 

viii.  29,  30 236 

viii.  33,  34 207,  n 

ix.  3 208,  n. 

ix.  4,  5 206 

ix.  5     .     68,203-214,470-472 

ix.  8 208,  n. 

x.  6-8 478 

x.  9 209,  n. 

x.  12 207,  n. 

x.  18 478 

xi.  33 295,  n. 

xiii.  11, 12 400 

xiv.  10 408, 472 

xv.  29 473 

xv.  32 473 


1  CORINTHIANS. 

1.  2 228 

i.  4-8 400,  401 

i.  10 146 

i.  13 217,  n. 

i.  17 289 

i.  22 279,  n. 

i.  26 207,  n. 

ii.  2 289 

iii.  8 93,  n. 

iii.  23 472 

iv.  5 400 

vi.  14 209,  n. 

vi.  17 122 

viii.  6 472 

x.  2 217,  n. 

x.  9 473 

x.  18 208,  n. 

xi.  3 472 

xii.  13 217,  n. 

xv.  15 209,  n. 

xv.  18 -.  .  268 

xv.  23,  24 399 

xv.  24-28    .     .     .     69,408,472 

xv.  47 474 

xv.  47,  48 207,  n. 

xv.  50 408 

xv.  51,  52 400 

2  CORINTHIANS. 

i.  21 209,  n. 

iii.  14 207,  n. 

iii.  17 27 

iv.  14 209,  n.  474 

v.  6 207,  n.  209,  n. 

v.  10 408 

v.  17 291 

vi.  12 146 

vii.  15 143 

viii.  9 193 

xi.  31 213,  2H 


INDEX    TO    PASSAGES    OF    SCRIPTURE. 


48" 


2  COB.  (continued).    Page 

xii.  8 224,  225 

xiii.  4 209,  n. 

GALATIANS. 

i.  1 209,  n.  225,  n. 

i.  11,  12 225,  n. 

i.  16 237 

iii.  27,  28 269 

iv.  23,  29 208,  n. 

vi.  16 291 

EPHESIASS. 

i.  3,4 236 

i.  15-23 293,294 

i.  17 476 

i.  17-23 69,  n. 

i.  19,  20 209,  n. 

i.  23 296,297 

Ii.  7 195 

ii.  10 291 

iii.  9 474 

iii.  11 195 

iii.  14-19     ....      295,296 

Ui.  17 268 

iv.  4,  5 207,  n. 

iv.  11-13 296 

iv.  20,21 268 

iv.  24 291 

v.  5 199,  n.  201,  n. 

v.  21 475 

vi.  10 217,  n. 

PHILIPPIANS. 

i.6 401 

i.  8, 21 269 

ii.6-8  .  .  .61,66,191-193 

ii.  9 74 

ii.  9  - 11 69,  n. 

ii.  12 143 

u.  16 830,  n. 

iii.  8 475 

iii.  8 269 

iv.  6 400 

iv.  13 476 

COLOSSIANS. 

i.  9-20 289-298 

i.  15-17.    .61,66,291-293 

i.  19 294 

i.27 476 

ii.  1  - 10 297 

ii.  2,8 476 

ii.  6,  7 268 

ii.  12 209,  n. 

ii.  17 207,  n. 

iii.  18 268.477 

Hi.  16 477 


1   THESSALONIANS.       Page 

i.  10 209,  n 

iii.  11,  12 226 

iv.  13  - 18    .    .    .    .      395, 396 
V.  1-6 397,398 

2  THESSALONIANS. 

i.  4-10 898,  399 

i.  12 201,  a 

ii 399 

ii.  8 477 

ii.  12 201,  a 

ii.  16,  17 226,  227 

1  TIMOTHY. 

i.  1 305,  n. 

ii.  8 305,  n. 

ii.  5 472 

iii.  14-16    ....     188-13^ 

iii.  16 184,185-191 

iv.  10 305,  n. 

v.  21 201,  n.  218,  n. 

vi.  14-16 306,0. 

2  TIMOTHY. 

i.  8,  9 236,  237 

iv.  1 201,  n.  408 


TITUS. 

i.  1,2 237 

i.  3 305,  n. 

ii.  10 305,  n. 

ii.  13      201.  n.  203,  n.  305,  n.  306,  n. 
iii.  4-6 SOsJn. 

HEBREWS. 

i.  1-6     ....     67,195,196 

i.6 219 

i.6 447,  n. 

i.  8,  9, 61, 301,  n 

i.  10-12 68,214 

ii.  14 203,  n. 

ii.  16 203,  n. 

iii.  4 209,  n. 

iv.  12,  18 331,  a. 

x.  25 401 

xi.  3 194,  195,  n. 

xi.  19 239,  n. 

xii.  2 74 

xiii.  8,9 269 


v.  8 


JAMES. 


400 


1   PETER. 

ii.  9 478 

iii.  15 477 

iv.  7        401 


488 


INDEX    TO    PASSAGES    OF    SCRIPTURE. 


iii.  3-13* 

2  PETER.            Page 
.    .    .  201,  n.  305,  n. 

4     .... 

5 

JTTDE.             Page 
201,  n.  203,  n.  478 
478 

25  .... 

.    .    .  305,  n.  479 

i.  1  -  8     , 

1  JOHN. 

ii.  7    .    . 

i.  1,  3  .    .    . 

ii.  12  .    . 

i  4  6      .    . 

218  n 

ii.  18  .    . 

401 

i  7      ... 

...               403 

ii.  20  .    . 

139 

i8     ... 

...      479  480 

ii.  24  .    . 

330,  n. 

i.  11    .    .    . 

iii.  5,  7    . 
iii.  11.    . 
iii.  16  .    . 

266,  n. 
330,  n. 
....  266  n.  478 

i.17    .    .    . 
ii.  8    .    .    . 
iii  2   .    .    . 

480 
480 

...         .    481 

v.  7,  8     . 

...     63,  184,  186 

iii.  9    ... 

447 

v.  11  .    . 

.    i     .    .    .    .    197,  n. 

xix.  13    .    . 

V.  18-21 

.    t    .    .    196-198 

xxi.  6  ... 

479 

xxii.  10,  12  . 

404 

2  JOHN. 

xxii.  13  .    . 

.    .    .    .479,480 

7    „ 

xxii.  20  . 

.    494 

GENERAL    INDEX. 


ACTA  Disputationis  Archelai  cum 
Manete,  on  John  i.  18;  461,  467. 

Adam  Kadmon  of  the  Cabalists,  350. 

Addison,  on  Milton,  150. 

Adimantus  the  Manicbaean,  on  John 
i.  18;  465. 

.Eons  of  the  Gnostics.  336,  n.  350, 
368,  369. 

Aikin,  Dr.  John,  on  Milton,  150. 

Alcuin,  on  John  i.  18;  450,  452,  n. 
466. 

Alexander  of  Alexandria,  93,  n.  461, 
467. 

Alford,  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament, 440-442.  Referred  to, 
446,  447,  451,  470,  etc. 

"All  things,"  restricted  meaning  of 
the  term,  140. 

Allegorical  interpretation  of  the  Old 
Testament,  418,  419. 

Alter,  his  critical  labors.  439. 

Ambrose,  on  John  i.  18;  465. 

America,  state  of  theology  and  re- 
ligion in,  17,  18. 

American  Bible  Union,  438. 

American  Tract  Society,  69,  n. 

Ammon,  C.  F.,  on  Rom.  ix.  5;  212, 
n. 

Ancyra,  Second  Synod  of  (A.  D. 
358),  on  John  i.  18;  451,  n.  Quot- 
ed, 454. 

Andreas  Cretensis,  on  John  i.  18; 
464. 

"Angel  of  Jehovah,"  183,  n. 

Angels,  Jewish  conceptions  concern- 
ing, 274,  275. 

Animal  soul  (anima)  distinguished 
by  some  from  the  intellect  or 
spirit,  110,  111,  n.;  but  not  by 
Tertullian,  115. 

Antichrist,  401. 

Autinomiaiis.  159 


Antioch,  Third  Synod  at  (A.  D. 
269),  461.  FJfth'Synod  at  (A  T. 
341),  460,  n. 

Apocalypse,  aft  early  work,  but  not 
written  by  St.  John,  402,  409. 
Its  character  and  purpose,  402  - 
404.  Speaks  of  the  second  com- 
ing of  Chris  i  as  near  at  hand. 
ibid. 

Apollinaris,  111,  117,  123,  128. 

Apostles,  the,  miraculous  inter- 
course of  our  Saviour  with,  after 
his  removal  from  the  earth,  225- 
227.  Their  expectations  concern- 
ing his  visible  return,  284,  393  - 
410.  Divinely  enlightened  re- 
specting tht  essential  truths  of 
Christianity,  412;  comp.  198. 
Whv  this  il'.Timination  was  not 
further  extended,  410-427. 

Apostolical  Constitutions,  468. 

Aquila,  his  version  of  Is.  ix.  6 ;  801, 
n. 

Archelaus,  on  John  i.  18;  461,  467. 

Arians,  111,  123,  366,  468. 

Aristotle,  161,  n.  176. 

Arius,  450,  459,  460,  n. 

Article,  the  Greek,  Middleton's  Doc- 
trine of,  examined,  199-203,  n. 

"Ascending  to  heaven,"  figurative 
meaning  of  the  expression,  246. 
386. 

Asterius,  468. 

Athanasian  cretd,  171,  172. 

Athanasius,  43,  91,  122,  126,  171. 
Quoted,  863.  On  John  i.  18,  452, 
n.  462.  PteutZ-Atliannsius,  462. 

Athenagoras,  or:  rhe  Logos,  358,  369, 
860. 

Attributes  of  Ord  hypostatized,  or 
conceived  of  as  proper  persons, 
by  Philo,  81?  316,  336-349;  by 


490 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


the  Gnostics,  334  -  336.  n.  350 ;  by 
the  Cabalists,  350-352;  by  the 
Hindoos,  352,  353;  and  by  the 
Christian  Fathers,  355  -  367.  As 
persons  regarded  as  far  inferior  to 
God,  365,  366. 

Augustine,  332,  363,  465.     Quoted, 
97,  373. 

BACON,  Lord,  on  the  Incarnation, 

130. 
Barnes,  Albert,  on  Acts   xx.   28; 

184,  n. 

Basil  of  Seleucia,  450,  459,  460,  n. 
Basil  the  Great,  450,  451,  n. 
Basnage,  quoted,  98,  99,  100,  350, 

351. 
Baumgarten,  on  Acts  xx.  28 ;  184, 

n. 
Baumgarten-Crusius,  on  Eom.  ix. 

5;  212,  n. 

Beausobre,  quoted,  101, 102. 
Belief  of  a  manifest  contradiction 

impossible,  367 ;  comp.  61,  62,  85, 

86,  171. 

Bengel,  439,  476. 
Benson,  George,  on  1  Tim.  Hi.  16; 

189,  n. 

Bentley  on  the  identity  of  the  Chris- 
tian arid  Platonic  Trinity,   103, 

104;  quoted,  150,  434,438. 
Berriman,  John,  on  1  Tim.  iii.  16; 

189,  n. 

Beza,  his  editions  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament, 436,  437,  478. 
Biblical    Repository.     See  Mayer, 

Stuart. 

Birch,  A.,  his  critical  labors,  439. 
Birch,  T.,  his  Life  of  Tillotson,  172, 

n. 

Blackwood's  Magazine,  quoted,  11. 
Bloomfield,  on  Rev.  i.  8;  479. 
Bohme,  C.  F.,  on  Rom.  ix.  5;  210, 

n. 

Brahma,  352. 
Browne,  Sir  Thomas,  on  witchcraft, 

417,  n. 

Bull,  Bishop,  quoted,  44  -  46. 
Bunyan,  402. 
Burke,  Edmund,   32,  n.      Quoted, 

141, 142,  157,  158. 
Byron,  Lord,  11. 

CABALISTS,  speculations  of  the,  350 

-352. 
Caesarius.  or  Paeucfo-Caesarius,  463 

464. 
"Calling  on  the  name  of  Christ," 


meaning  of  tho  axpresslon,  228 

229. 

Calvin,  92.  301,  n.  On  John  x.  10; 
92,  n. 

Campbell,  Dr.  George,  on  Luke 
xxiv.  52 ;  447,  448,  n. 

Cave,  Dr.  William,  453. 

Chalcedon,  Council  of  (A.  D.  451), 
129. 

Chalcidius,  101,  n. 

Chalmers,  Dr.  Thomas,  criticised, 
147,  160-163,  n. 

Christian  Disciple,  referred  to,  3. 

Christian  Examiner,  referred  to,  18, 
n.  43,  n.  183,  n.  189,  n.  194,  n. 
296,  n.  329,  n.  333,  n.  342,  n.  354, 
n. 

Christianity,  present  st&te  of  opir- 
ion  and  feeling  respecting,  5  - 15. 
Importance  of  correct  opinions 
concerning,  20  -  29,  378  -  380. 
Obstacles  to  the  spread  of  the 
truth,  36  -  38.  Blended  with  for- 
eign  opinions  even  by  the  ear- 
liest Christian  Fathers,  119,  120. 
What  it  teaches,  375,  376.  Iti 
inestimable  value,  377  -  379.  But 
its  authority  and  value  are  goon 
when  it  is  not  regarded  as  a  d*- 
vine  revelation,  16,  17. 

CHRIST.     See  JESUS  CHRIST. 

Chrysostom,  267,  n.  463.  _ 

Church  of  England,  service  of,  172. 

Cicero,  quoted,  12,  13,  160,  n. 

Clarke,  Adam,  on  Acts  xx.  28 ;  184, 
n. 

Clarke,  Dr.  Samuel,  43,  n.  Quoted, 
357  -  359. 

Claudianus  Mamertus,  452,  n. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  358,  450, 
451,  n.  453,  467.  Quoted,  96,  97, 
113,  237,  361,  453,  n.  Looseness 
of  his  citations  from  Scripture, 
455,  456.  On  the  incarnation  of 
the  Logos,  112-114. 

Clement  of  Rome,  quoted,  208,  n. 

Clementine  Homilies,  quoted,  221,  n. 

Colossians,  Epistle  to  the,  288. 

"  Coming  from  heaven "  or  from 
God,  figurative  meaning  of  the 
expression,  386,  391. 

"  Coming  "  of  Christ,  not  literal  and 
personal,  but  figurative,  230,  Jt. 
272,  274-282,  423.  Our  Sav- 
iour's language  concerning  it 
misunderstood  by  his  Apostlti, 
284,  393-410. 

Common    English   Version   of   tht 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


491 


New  Testament,  437.  Mistrans- 
lations in,  146,  191,  etc.,  203,  n., 
and  elsewhere. 

Communication  of  Properties,  doc- 
trine of  the,  124. 

Complutensian  Polyglot,  434-436, 
478. 

Constantino,  the  Emperor,  97. 

Constantinople,  Council  of  A.  D. 
381),  43, 123. 

Conybeare  and  Howson,  207,  n.  306, 
n.  475,  476. 

Cosri,  the  book,  quoted,  238,  n. 

Councils.  See  Ancyra,  Antioch, 
Chalcedon,  Constantinople,  Ephe- 
sus,  Lateran,  Nice. 

44  Create,"  use  of  the  word  to  denote 
a  moral  renovation,  291. 

Cudworth,  quoted,  98,  99, 105,  348, 
849.  Study  of  his  work  on  the 
Intellectual  System  recommend- 
ed, 99,  n. 

Curetonian  Syriac  version,  450,  n. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria,  126-128,  450, 
451,  n.  456,  457.  Quoted,  458,  n. 
Pseudo-Cyril,  463. 

DEMONIACAL  possession,  417. 

Damascenus.  See  Joannes  Dama- 
scenus. 

Darkness.  Figures  representing  a 
day  of  utter  darkness  used  to  de- 
scribe great  national  calamities, 
278,  279. 

Davidson,  Dr.  Samuel,  184,  n.  189, 
n.  446. 

Davy,  Sir  Humphry,  14. 

"Dead,"  the,  metaphorical  use  of 
the  term,  264. 

Death,  Christian  view  of,  263.  Use 
of  the  term  to  denote  the  punish- 
ment of  sin,  262,  263. 

"  Descending  from  heaven,"  figura- 
tive meaning  of  the  expression, 
246,  247,  386,  391. 

Devil.    See  S:it:ni. 

De  Wette.    See  Wette. 

Didymus  of  Alexandria,  450,  463, 
464,  n.  465. 

Dioscurus,  128. 

44  Discourse,"  use  of  the  word  in  the 
sense  of  "  reason,"  369,  370. 

Docetse,  114. 

Doctrina  Orientalis,  369,  453. 

Doddridge,  306,  n.  On  Rev.  i.  11; 
481. 

"Double  Nature"  of  Christ  See 
Hypoetatic  Union. 

46 


Drummond,  Sir  William,  18. 

EADIE,  Professor  John,  on  CoL  ii.  2. 
3;  476. 

Eclectic  Review,  187,  n.  189,  n. 
190,  n. 

Education,  moral  and  religiouo,  22  - 
25. 

Eichhora,  188,  n. 

El,  use  of  the  word,  300,  n. 

Eleazar,  or  Eliezer,  Rabbi,  238,  n. 

Elohim,  use  of  the  word,  300,  n. 

Elzevir  editions  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament, 437. 

Emanations,  Cabalistic  doctrine  of^ 
350-352. 

Emlyn,  on  Heb.  i.  10-12;  214,  n. 

England,  state  of  theology  in,  15. 

Ephesians,  Epistle  to  the,  288. 

Ephesus,  General  Council  of  (A.  D. 
431),  127.— Another  Council  at 
(A.  D.  449),  the  "Council  of 
Banditti,"  128. 

Ephrem  the  Syrian,  456. 

Epiphanius,  450,  451,  452,  n.  Quot- 
ed, 454.  Looseness  of  his  cita- 
tions from  Scripture,  455,  456. 

Erasmus,  93,  n.  189,  n.  197,  n.  210. 
n.  303,  n.  306,  n.  His  editions  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  434,  436. 
Quoted,  480. 

Error,  language  of,  how  far  it  may 
be  used,  420  -  422. 

Errors  of  the  Apostles,  why  not  all 
corrected  by  our  Saviour,  410,  etc, 

Eunomius,  450,  459,  460,  n. 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  93,  n.  450, 
452,  n.  455,  n.  461,  467.  Quoted, 
97,  213.  454,  n.  462,  n. 

Eustathius  of  Antioch,  461,  462, 
467. 

Euthymius  Zigabenus,  267,  n.  464. 

Eutyches,  128. 

Excerpta  Theodoti,  451,  n. 

FATHERS,  the  earlier,  regarded  the 
Father  alone  as  the  Supreme 
God,  and  the  Son  and  Spirit  as 
far  inferior,  42,  43,  45,  208-213, 
365,  366;  comp.  93,  n.  113,  116, 
120,  n.  204,  205,  232,  233.  Blend- 
ed  their  philosophy  with  Chris- 
tianity, 94,  95, 119/120,  355,  374. 
Borrowed  their  doctrine  of  the 
Logos  from  Philo,  94,  316,  334, 
338,  356.  Opinions  of  the  Fa- 
thers concerning  the  Logos,  358  - 
878;  on  the  Incarnation,  108- 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


123.  Strange  arguments  of  some 
of  them  for  the  Trinity,  91,  92. 
Use  of  their  quotations  from  the 
New  Testament  in  textual  criti- 
cism, 439,  440.  Their  reading  of 
John  i.  18;  450-467.  Date  of 
the  principal,  453-466. 

Faustinus,  on  John  i.  18;  465. 
'  Favor  of  Christ,"  the,  226. 

Ferrandus,  450,  459,  461,  n. 

Flatt,  J.  F.  von,  on  Rom.  ix.  6; 
207,  n. 

Flavian,  128. 

Fleury,  referred  to,  106. 

Food,  metaphors  derived  from  tak- 
ing, 249,  250. 

Foster,  John,  quoted,  158. 

France,  lesson  taught  by  its  relig- 
ious history,  29. 

Fritzsche,  C.  F.  A.,  on  Rom.  ix.  6 ; 
210,  n. 

Fulgentius,  450,  451,  452,  n.  458. 
Quoted,  459,  n.  On  "the  begin- 
ning and  the  end,"  as  a  title  of 
Christ,  480. 

GALE,  Theophilus,  on  the  Plato- 
nism  of  the  Fathers,  101. 

Gaudentius,  450,  459,  461,  n. 

General  Repository  and  Review,  re- 
ferred to,  105,  n. 

German  philosophy,  14. 

German  theology,  16,  262. 

Gesenius,  on  Isa.  ix.  5;  183,  n. 

Gibbon,  quoted,  95,  96,  129. 

Gieseler,  referred  to,  416,  n. 

Gill,  Dr.  John,  quoted,  66. 

Glanvill,  quoted,  370.  His  "Sad- 
ducismus  Triumphatus,"  417, 
n. 

Glb'ckler,  on  Rom.  ix.  5;  210,  n. 

Gnostics,  112,  117,  334,  n.  337,  361, 
368. 

GOD,  revealed  by  Christianity  in 
his  paternal  character,  375,  376. 
Figurative  language  used  to  de- 
scribe the  operations  of,  254,  255, 
886-388.  Use  of  the  word  "  God  " 
as  a  common  name,  120,  121, 
300,  801,  314,  319,  320,  365,  n. 
468. 

Goethe,  11-13.  _  ^ 

Government,  civil,  its  legitimate 
purpose  and  best  form,  25. 

Gray,  quoted,  on  Milton,  150. 

Greek  New  Testament,  various  read- 
ings of,  432,  433,  etc.  History  of 
the  printed  text.  434  -  445.  Prin- 


;  published  in  this 

century,  440  - 
Green,  T.  S.,  his  Grammar  of  the 

New  Testament  Dialect  referred 

to,  203,  n. 

Greenwood,  on  John  xx.  28;  303,  n. 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  or  of  Nazian- 

zum,   450,   452,  n.  463.     On  the 

deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  43,  44. 

On  "the  polytheism  of  the  "  too 

orthodox,"  54. 
Gregory  Nyssen,  or  of  Nyssa,  450, 

452,  n.    Quoted,  455,  n.  458,  469, 

n. 
Griesbach,  his  critical  labors,  439  - 

441.      On    the    Received    Text, 

438.      Referred   to,   184,  n.   185, 

189,  213,  n.  305,  n.  443,  444,  446, 

451,  470,  etc. 

Grotius,  93,  n.  184,  n.  189,  n.  197,  n. 

301,  n.  306,  n.  476. 
Guericke,  or  Guerike,  454,  n.  455. 

HACKETT,  Professor  H.  B.,  on  Acts 
xx.  28;  184,  n. 

Hahn,  305,  n.  Untrustworthiness 
of  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment, 443-445. 

Haldane,  Robert,  on  Rom.  ix.  5; 
212,  n. 

Hammond,  on  Col.  ii.  2,  3 ;  476. 

"  He,"  use  of  the  pronoun  without 
an  antecedent,  266,  n. 

"Heaven,"  proper  meaning  of  the 
word,  as  we  use  it,  388,  389. 
"To  ascend  to  heaven,"  "  to  be 
in  heaven,"  "  to  descend  from 
heaven,"  "  to  come  from  heaven," 
figurative  meaning  of  the  expres- 
sions, 246-248,  386,  391.  See 
Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  not  written 
by  St.  Paul,  194,  n. 

Heinrichs,  184,  n.  189,  n. 

Henderson,  Dr.  Ebenezer,  on  1  Tim. 
iii.  16,  187,  n. ;  his  errors,  189,  n. 

Hengstenberg,  183,  n.  On  Rev.  L 
8;  480. 

Heraclitus,  113. 

Hermas,  Shepherd  of,  402.  Quoted, 
238,  n. 

Hezekiah.  Rabbi,  238,  n. 

Hilary,   on   John  i.    18;    450,  461, 

452,  n.  464,  465,  n. 
Hillel,  Rabbi,  250. 

Hindoos,  the  divine  attributes 
postatized  in  their  theology, 
359. 


33    ho~ 

,852, 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


493 


Hippolyhwr  93,  n.  461,  467.  On 
Rom.  ix.  5,  208-210. 

Hofmann,  J.  C.  K.,  on  1  John  v.20; 
197,  n. 

Holy  Spirit,  personality  and  divini- 
ty of  the,  43,  64.  Use  and  mean- 
ing of  the  term,  311,  312.  The 
conception  analogous  to  that  of 
the  Logos,  312.  The  Holy  Spirit 
often  confounded  with  the  Logos 
by  the  earlier  Fathers,  312,  n. 

Hope,  Thomas,  13,  14. 

Horsley,  Bishop,  quoted,  91,  103. 
Recommends  the  study  of  Cud- 
worth,  99. 

Howe,  John,  on  the  Trinity,  54. 

Huet,  his  "  Origeniana  ".referred  to, 
43,  n. 

Hag,  J.  L.,  187,  n. 

Hume,  David,  quoted,  33,  34. 

Hurd,  Bishop,  quoted,  82. 

Huther,  J.  E.,  189,  n.  197,  n.  306, 
n.  442,  476,  477,  478,  479. 

Hypostatic  Union,  57  -  62.  History 
of  the  doctrine,  107-135,  303,  n. 
Language  of  Bacon,  South,  Watts, 
and  others,  129  - 134.  Not  a  mys- 
tery, but  an  absurdity,  169. 

IDACIUS  CLARUS,  466. 
Idatius  the  Chronicler,  466,  n. 
Ideas,  archetypal  world  of,  in  the 

Platonic    philosophy,    308,    309, 

345-349. 

Ignatius  (Pseudo-Ignatius),  468. 
Immanuel,  meaning  of  the  name, 

255. 

Inadequate  ideas,  166,  387. 
Incarnation  of  the  Logos,  opinions 

of  the  Fathers  concerning,  108, 

etc. 
Incomprehensible  propositions  not 

objects  of  belief,  165  - 169. 
Incomprehensible  truths,  164. 
Infinity,  our  idea  of,  165-167. 
Inquisition,  the,  106. 
Inspiration  of  the  Apostles,  412. 
Interpretation  of  language,  its  prin- 
ciples, 138  -  155.      Fundamental 
S-inciple    of  interpretation    vio- 
ted  by  Trinitarian  expositors, 

156,  170. 
Irenaens,  812,  n.  313,  n.  858,  450, 

451,  n.    Quoted,  111,  n.  112,  n. 

860,  361.     On  the  incarnation  of 

the  Logos,  110  - 112.    Quotations 

of  John  i.  18 ;  461. 
Isidore  of  Pelusium,  450,  459,  460. 


JACKSON'S  edition  of  Novatian  re- 
ferred to,  43,  n.  93,  n.  112,  n. 

Jaspis,  on  1  John  v.  20 ;  197,  n. 

Jerome,  455. 

Jerusalem,  destruction  of,  and  ex- 
tinction of  the  Jewish  nation, 
how  connected  with  the  estab- 
lishment of  Christianity  or  the 
figurative  "coming"  of  Christ, 
275  -  277. 

JESUS  CHRIST.  The  doctrine  that 
he  is  both  God  and  man  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms,  57,  58, 169 ;  it 
turns  the  Scriptures  into  a  book 
of  enigmas,  60,  61.  The  proposi- 
tion, that  he  is  God,  proved  to  be 
false  from  the  Scripture?,  65-89; 
it  cannot  even  be  understood  in 
any  sense  which  is  not  obviously 
false,  85-89.  Taught  his  fol- 
lowers to  pray,  not  to  himself, 
but  to  God,  223,  229,  230.  His 
miraculous  intercourse  with  his 
Apostles  and  first  followers,  225  - 
228.  The  question  of  his  pro- 
existence,  234  -  253.  Often  spok- 
en of  personally,  when  his  religion 
is  intended.  247-250,  268-284. 
Confined  his  teaching  to  the  es- 
sential truths  of  religion,  412,  414 
-427.  Employed  terms  familiar 
to  his  hearers  in  new  senses,  leav- 
ing their  meaning  to  be  gradually 
unfolded,  176,  177;  comp.  284. 
His  divine  authority,  17;  429.  Se* 
Apostles,  "  Coming,"  Hypostatio 
Union,  Judgment,  Logos,  Messiah* 

Jewish  nation.     See  Jerusalem. 

Jewish  opinions  respecting  the  com- 
ing of  the  Messiah  and  events 
connected  with  it,  243,  250,  261, 
889  -  406. 

Jewish  prejudices  against  Chris- 
tianity, 80,235,257,258. 

Joannes  Damascenus,  on  John  i. 
18;  464. 

John,  the  Apostle,  his  purpose  in 
the  Introduction  of  his  Gospel. 
321,  330;  in  the  commencement 
of  his  First  Epistle,  329  -  381. 
His  style,  257;  comp.  198,  266,  n. 
Not  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse, 
402, 409. 

Johnson,  Dr.  Samuel,  on  Milton,  149. 

Jowett,  Professor  Benjamin,  441. 
On  Rom.  ix.  5;  472. 

"  Judge,"  use  of  the  verb,  282. 

Judgment  of  men  by  Christ,   68, 


494 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


261,  262,  270,  271,  280-282,  284, 
285. 

Julian  of  "Eclanum,  463,  n. 

Julian,  the  Emperor,  452,  n.  458,  n. 
462. 

Junilius,  on  John  i.  18 ;  466. 

Justi,  L.  J.  G.,  on  Koin.  ix.  6; 
212,  n. 

Justin  Martyr,  on  the  incarnation 
of.  the  Logos,  108-110.  Quot- 
ed, 108,  n.  109,  204,  205,  312,  n. 
359. 

**  KINGDOM  of  Heaven,"  or  of  God, 
or  of  the  Messiah,  meaning  of  the 
term,  176,  177;  figurative  lan- 
guage connected  with  it  in  the 
New  Testament,  273,  274,  280, 
281. 

Knapp,  93,  n.  305,  n.  443,  444,  445, 
446,  470,  etc. 

Kollner,  on  Kom.  ix.  5;  210,  n. 
211,  n. 

Koppe,  on  Rom.  ix.  5;  211,  n. 

Krehl,  A.  L.  G.,  on  Rom.  ix.  5; 
210,  n. 

Kuinoel,  or  Kuhnb'l,  93,  n.  184,  n. 
302,  n. 

LACHMANN,  184,  n.  189,  n.  210,  n. 
300,  n.  445,  449,  470,  etc.  His 
editions  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
440,  441,  443. 

Lactantius,  quoted,  366,  n.  370,  n. 

Lamson,  Dr.  Alvan,  referred  to, 
43,  n. 

Language,  principles  of  its  interpre- 
tation, 138  -  155.  Intrinsic  am- 
biguity of,  138,  283,  284;  causes, 
141-147.  Considerations  to  be 
attended  to  by  an  interpreter  of, 
148,  149.  Its  literal  meaning 
often  absurd,  or  false,  156  -  160. 
So  far  as  it  has  a  meaning,  it 
must  be  intelligible ;  it  cannot  ex- 
press incomprehensible  mysteries, 
161-169. 

Lardner,  453,  461,  n. 

Lateran  Council  (A.  D.  1215),  105. 

Laurence,  Archbishop,  on  1  Tim. 
iii.  16;  185,  n. 

LeClerc,  306,  n.  Quoted,  125, 127 
128,  371. 

Leo  I.,  Pope,  128. 

Liberty,  civil,  true  religion  its  only  ; 
safeguard,  25-29. 

Light  the  substance  of  God,  accord-  ' 
ing  to  the  Cabalists,  351.  Light  1 


which  shone  round  Christ  at  his 
transfiguration,  controversy  re- 
specting, 416. 

Literature  of  the  day,  absence  of 
religious  principle  in  the,  9  -  15. 

Locke  32,  132,  200,  n.  207,  n. 
212,  n. 

Logos,  meaning  of  the  term,  307, 
369-372.  Its  use  in  the  later  Pla- 
tonic philosophy,  308,  309.  Per- 
sonified in  the  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon, 310, 311.  Naturalness  of  the 
conception,  310.  The  Logos,  at 
first  personified,  afterwards  hypos- 
tatized,  or  conceived  of  as  a  proper 
person,  313.  Opinions  of  Philo, 
314  -  316.  St.  John's  use  of  the 
term,  317  -  331.  Regarded  by 
the  Fathers  of  the  first  four  cen- 
turies both  as  an  attribute  and  a 
person,  355-364.  Often  identi- 
fied with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
with  the  Wisdom  of  God,  312,  n.; 
comp.  362,  363.  Origen  quoted 
on  the  relation  of  the  Logos  to 
the  Wisdom  of  God,  356,  357. 
The  Logos  partially  identified 
with  God  by  the  earlier  Fathers, 
365,  366.  Conceived  of  as  a  man- 
ifestation of  God,  368,  369.  The 
uttered  Logos,  369  -  372.  Confu- 
sion of  ideas  produced  by  con- 
founding the  different  meanings 
of  the  word,  372,  373.  See  Fa- 
thers, Philo. 

Lowth,  Dr.  William,  on  Isa.  vi.  3; 
182. 

Lucian  the  martyr,  450,  459,  460,  n 

Lucke,  197,  n.  302,  n. 

Liinemann,  G.  C.  G.,  442,  477. 

Luther,  on  Isa.  ix.  5 ;  183,  n. 

MACKNIGHT,  on  Titus  ii.  13 ;  306. 

Mai,  Angelo,  463,  n. 

Manuscripts,  Greek,  of  the  New 
Testament,  188,  n.  439,  449. 
Punctuation  in,  205,  206,  471. 

Marcellus,  213,  450,  459,  460,  n. 

Marsh,  Bishop,  184,  n.    Quoted,  434. 

Martini,  referred  to,  43,  n. 

Matthaii's  editions  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament, 439-441.  Referred  to, 
457,  n.  475,  477,  481. 

Maurer,  on  Isa.  ix.  5;  183,  n. 

Maximinus  the  Arian  bishop,  452. 
n.  465. 

Mayer,  Dr.  Lewis,  on  Heb.  i.  8,  9 
301,  n. 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


495 


Messiah,  the,  Jewish  expectations 
and  feelings  respecting,  243-245, 
250,  261, 389  --  406.  See  Old  Tes- 
tament. 

Meyer,  H,  A.  W.,  184,  n.  189,  n. 
*97,  n.  210,  n.  302,  n.  303,  n. 
306,  n.  446,  448,  n.  470,  etc.  His 
Commentary  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 442. 

Michaelis,  J.  D.,  184,  n.  197,  n.  302, 
n.  448. 

Middleton,  Bishop,  93,  n.  185.  His 
"  Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Article  " 
examined,  v  199 -203,  n. 

Mill,  Dr.  John,  435.  His  edition  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  438,  439. 

Millennium,  doctrine  of  the,  406, 
407,  409. 

Milton,  hyperbolical  language  used 
concerning,  by  Johnson,  Addison, 
Bentley,  and  others,  149,  150. 
Calls  angels  "gods,"  300,  n. 

Monk's  Life  of  Bentley,  103,  104. 

Monophysite  heresy,  128,  129. 

Montagu,  Richard,  462,  n. 

Montfaucon,  434,  466,  n. 

More,  Henry,  his  "Antidote  to 
Atheism,""  417,  n. 

Morus,  on  1  John  \.  20;  197,  n. 

Moses,  remarkable  language  con- 
cerning, 255,  n. 

Mosheim,  quoted,  94,  95,  96,  n.  126, 
129.  Referred  to,  416,  n. 

Munscher,  his  "Dogmengeschichte  " 
referred  to,  43,  n.  112,  n.  Errors, 
111,  n.  120,  n.  Quoted,  122. 

Munter,  quoted,  117,  118. 

Mysteries,  161. 

"NAME,"   pleonastic    use   of    the 

word,  215,  216,  228. 
**  Nature,"  use  of  the  word,  310. 
Nature  of  Christ.     See  Hypostatic 

Union. 
Neander,  quoted,  111,  n.   371,  n. 

Referred  to,  118,  197,  n.  302,  n. 

806,  n. 

Nestorius,  126-128. 
Newcome,  Archbishop,  93,  n.  197, 

n.  306,  n.     On  1  Cor.  x.  9 ;  474. 
Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  on  1  Tim.  iii.  16; 

189,  n. 

New  York,  State  of,  religious  fanat- 
icism in,  18,  n. 
Nice,  Council  of  (A.  D.  325),  42,  54, 

122,  368,  859. 

Noesselt,  on  Rom.  ix.  5;  207,  n.* 
Novation.  93,  n.  210. 

46* 


Noyes,  Dr.  George  R.,  referred  to, 
182,  n.  183,  n.  189,  n.  260,  n. 

OERTEL,  on  Rom.  ix.  5 ;  212,  n. 

Old  Testament,  affords  no  proof  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  181, 
182;  or  of  the  deity  of  the  Mes- 
siah, 183,  n.  Allegorical  inter- 
pretation of  the,  418,  419. 

Olshausen,  184,  n.  189,  n.  476,  477. 
Quoted,  211,  n. 

Omniscience,  our  idea  of,  167  - 169. 

"  Only  Son,"  or  "  only-begotten 
Son,"  meaning  of  the  term  as 
applied  to  Christ,  220,  469,  n. 

Oriental  style,  143,  236,  241,  249, 
277,  278,282,287,288,409. 

Origen,  93,  n.  109,  n.  314,  450,  451, 
n.  452,  n.  Quoted,  120,  n.  121, 
362,  364,  366,  n.  On  the  incar- 
nation of  the  Logos,  120-122. 
On  the  relation  of  the  Logos  to 
the  Wisdom  of  God,  356,  357, 
comp.  335,  n.  362.  On  Prayer, 
231  -  234.  Denies  that  Christ  is 
•'  the  God  over  all,"  213.  On  the 
Unitarianism  of  the  great  body  of 
believers,  374.  Quotations  of 
John  i.  18;  456,457. 

Orthodoxy,  so  .called,  376  -  378. 

Oudin,  464. 

Ovid,  quoted,  349. 

PALEY     has    misrepresented     the 

character  of  Christian  morality, 

178. 

Palladius,  455. 
Patrick,   Bishop,  on  Deut.  vi.  4; 

182. 

Patripassians,  110. 
Paul,  the  Apostle,  his  miraculous 

intercourse  with  Christ,  225,  226. 

Not  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to 

the  Hebrews,  194,  n. 
Paulus,  on  Rom.  ix.  5;  210,  n. 
Pearce,  Bishop,  on  John  x.  30 ;  93, 

n. 

Penn,  Granville,  446,  476. 
"  Person,"  meaning  of  the  word,  in 

reference  to  the  Trinity,  40  -  42, 

47-54. 
Petavius,  or  Petau,  his  "  Dogmata 

Theologica"   referred  to,  43,  n. 

125,  416.     Quoted,  100,  101,  863, 

363. 
Peter,  the  Apostle,  probably  not  the 

author   of  the    Second    Epiatlt 

ascribed  to  him,  401. 


496 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


Phaebadius,  or  Phoebadius,  450,  464, 
465. 

Philentolos,  Daniel,  Arabic  version 
of  the  New  Testament  by,  186,  n. 

Philo,  the  Jewish  philosopher,  94,  n. 
220,  221,  308,  363,  371,  372,  n. 
His  character  and  influence,  332, 
833.  His  conceptions  respecting 
the  Logos,  314  -  316.  Applies  the 
term  Logos  to  angels,  Moses, 
Aaron,  &c.,  328,  329.  His  specu- 
lations concerning  the  Wisdom 
of  God,  336-338.  Hypostatizes 
other  attributes  or  Powers  of  God, 
338  -  343,  and  even  the  Powers  of 
God  generally,  343-345,  which 
he  identifies  with  the  Ideas  of  the 
archetypal  world,  345  -  348.  His 
speculations  similar  to  those  of 
the  Gnostics,  Cabalists,  and  Hin- 
doos, 334  -  353.  Explanation  of 
the  process  of  thought  which  led 
to  them,  353  -  355.  See  Fathers. 

Philoxenian  Syriac  version,  466,  n. 

Photius,  464,  n. 

Plato,  175.  Nothing  resembling  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  to  be  found 
in  his  writings,  96.  Epistles  as- 
cribed to  him  spurious,  96,  n. 

Platonic  philosophy,  the  later,  the 
source  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity, 94-104,  322.  its  archetypal 
world  of  Ideas,  and  doctrine  of 
the  Logos,  308,  309,  348. 

Plerama  of  the  Gnostics,  336,  351. 

Pliny's  Letter  to  Trajan,  quoted, 
231. 

Plutarch,  quoted,  32. 

Pocock,  Dr.  Edward,  394,  n.  395,  n. 

Pope,  quoted,  150. 

Porter,  Professor  J.  Scott,  189,  n. 
446. 

Potter,  Archbishop,  quoted,  114. 

Powers  of  God  hypostatized  by 
Philo,  338-345.  Regarded  by 
him  as  constituting  the  Ideas  of 
the  archetypal  world,  346-348. 
So  by  others  among  the  later 
Platonists,  348,  349. 

Prayer  to  Christ,  remarks  on,  221  - 
234. 

Pre-existence  of  Christ,  remarks  on 
the,  234-253. 

Pre-existence  of  souls,  doctrine  of, 
prevalent  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
413. 

Priestley,  his  History  of  Early 
Opinions,  referred  to,  43,  n. 


104  n.     Errors,  111,  n.  112.  n 

232,  n.  363,  n. 

Proclus  of  Constantinople,  463. 

Prudentius,  452,  n.     Quoted,  364. 

Ptolemy,  the  Gnostic,  334,  n. 

Punctuation  of  the  Greek  New  Tes- 
tament of  no  authority,  205,  206, 
471. 

RAMMOHUN  ROY,  353. 

"  Ransom,"  use  of  the  word,  155. 
Ratio  as  the  rendering  of  Logos,  370, 

371. 
Received  Text,  so    called,  of  the 

Greek  New  Testament,  432-434, 

437,  438. 

Reiche,  on  Rom.  ix.  5;  210,  n. 
Religion,  as  a  science,  defined,  26. 

What  it  teaches,  375,  376. 
Resurrection  of  Christ  effected  by 

the  power  of  God,  the  Father, 

209,  n. 
Revelation  of  St.  John.    See  Apoc- 


Robinson,  Dr.  Edward,  93,  n.  448. 

On  the  word  irpoo-Kwdv,  447. 
Rosemnuller,  J.  G.,  93,  n.  184,  n. 

189,  n.  197,  n.  302,  n.  306,  n. 
Riickert,  L.  I.,  210,  n.  211,  n.  474. 
Rufinus  of  Aquileia,  457. 
Rufinus   Syrus,   or   Palaestinensis, 

463. 

SABATIER,  on  John  i.  18;  464. 

Sabellians,  the,  212. 

Sabellius,  213. 

Sceculum,  meaning  of  the  word,  194. 

Salvation.  How  men  are  "  saved  M 
by  Christ,  270. 

Sandius,  referred  to,  114. 

Satan,  Jewish  conception  of,  198. 
Language  of  our  Saviour  respect- 
ing, 420,  421. 

Saxe,  or  Saxius,  C.,  464. 

Schleusner,  93,  n.  476. 

Schoettgen,  238,  n. 

Scholz,  his  critical  researches,  and 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament 
439-441.  Referred  to  189,  n. 
805,  n.  451,  470,  etc. 

Schott,  H.  A.,  184,  n.  189,  n.  197,  n. 
305,  n.  306,  n.  443,  470,  etc. 

Schrader,  Karl,  on  Rom.  ix.  6;  210, 
n. 

Scrivener,  F.  H.,  437,  n. 

Semisch,  quoted,  455,  456. 

Semler,  on  Rom.  ix.  6 ;  207,  n.  SJO 
n. 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


497 


Scphiroth  of  the  Cabalists,  351, 362, 
366. 

Sermo  as  the  rendering  of  Logos, 
370,  371. 

Shakespeare,  quoted,  194, 195.  Re- 
ferred to,  448. . 

Sharp,  Granville,  on  the  Greek  ar- 
ticle, 199,  n.  478.  On  Philip,  iii. 
8;  475. 

Sherlock,  Dr.  William,  quoted,  53, 
372,  373. 

"  Sign  from  heaven,"  279. 

Simpson,  Rev.  John,  251,  n. 

Siva,  352. 

Smith,  Dr.  John  Pye,  184,  n. 

Socinus,  regarded  Christ  as  an  ob- 
ject of  prayer,  222. 

Socrates,  the"  philosopher,  32. 

Socrates  Scholasticus,  460,  n. 

"  Son  of  God,"  use  and  meaning  of 
the  term,  68,  218-221. 

"Son  of  Man,"  meaning  of  the 
term,  265,  266. 

South,  Dr.  Robert,  on  the  Incarna- 
tion, 130-132. 

Souverain,  his  Le  Plat&nisme  dbxntt. 
368,  n. 

Sozomen,  quoted,  460,  n. 

Spenser,  quoted,  32. 

Spirit  of  God.    See  Holy  Spirit. 

Stanley,  A.  P.,  adopts  Lachmann's 
text,  441. 

Steiger,  on  Col.  ii.  2 ;  476. 

Stephen,  his  address  to  Christ  at 
his  martyrdom,  224. 

Stephens,  Robert,  his  third  edition 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  436, 437, 
438. 

Stoic  doctrine  of  the  renovation  of 
all  things  by  fire,  406. 

Stolz,  on  Rom.  ix.  4,  6;  207,  n. 
212,  n. 

Stuart,  Professor  Moses,  his  Letters 
to  Dr.  Channing,  3,  n.  41,  68,  66, 
83.  On  John  x.  30;  93,  n.  On 
the  absence  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  from  the  Old  Testament, 
181,  n.  On  Acts  xx.  28;  184,  n. 
On  1  Tim.  iii.  16;  189,  n.  190. 
On  Rom.  ix.  6;  210,  n.  On  Heb. 
i.  8;  301,  n.  On  Titus  ii.  13; 
806,  n.  Mistranslation  of  Tertul- 
lian,  866,  n.  On  Rev.  i.  8;  479. 
Referred  to,  203,  n.  443. 

Sufferings  of  this  life  regarded  by 
the  Jews  as  punishments  from 
God,  413. 

Symmachus,  version  of,  801,  n. 


Synods.    See  Ancyra,  Antioch. 

TALMUD,  quoted,  238,  n.  250. 

Tatian,  on  the  Logos,  358. 

Taylor,  Dr.  John,  of  Norwich,  207, 
n. 

Tertulliaji,  quoted,  116,  210-212, 
313,  n.  318,  362,  366,  n.  370,  n. 
Referred  to,  93,  n.  115,  117.  On 
the  incarnation  of  the  Logos,  115 
-  117.  Looseness  of  his  citations 
from  Scripture,  456. 

Testament.  See  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment, Old  Testament. 

"  Textus  Receptus,"  437. 

Theile,  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament, 443,  445.  Referred  to, 
305,  n.  470,  473,  etc. 

Theodoret,  112,  n.  On  the  Platonic 
Trinity,  97,  98.  On  John  i.  18; 
463. 

Theodosius,  the  Emperor,  127. 

Theodotion,  version  of,  301,  n. 

Theodotus,  450,  453. 

Theology,  state  of,  in  England,  16; 
in  Germany,  16;  in  America,  17, 
18.  Inveterate  errors  in,  36. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch,  358.  Quot- 
ed, 312,  n.  360. 

Theophylact,  267,  n.  464. 

Tholuck,  on  John  xx.  28;  302,  n. 

Thomson,  Charles,  207,  n. 

Thomson,  James,  the  poet,  quoted, 
227. 

Thomson,  Dr.  James,  on  the  manu- 
scripts used  for  the  Compluten- 
sian  Polyglot,  434. 

Tillotson,  Archbishop,  on  the  Atha- 
nasian  creed,  172. 

Tischendorf,  184,  n.  189,  n.  210,  n. 
305,  n.  439.  His  editions  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  440,  441.  Re- 
ferred to,  446,  451,  470,  etc. 

Tittmann,  305,  n.  443,  445.  470,  etc. 

Titus  of  Rostra,  450,  452,  462. 
Quoted,  463,  n. 

Transubstantiation,  105,  151,  159. 

Tregelles,  Dr.  S.  P.,  184,  n.  187,  n. 
188,  n.  189,  n.  434,  n.  436,  489, 
446,  473,  etc.  His  critical  labors, 
442,  443.  His  arguments  in  favor 
of  the  reading  "only-begotten 
God"  in  John  i.  18,  examined, 
448-469.  On  1  Peter  iii.  16; 
477. 

Trinity,  doctrine  of  the,  contradic- 
tory in  terms  to  that  of  the  unity 
of  God,  40,  41.  Opinions  con- 


498 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


cerning  it  before  the  Council  of 
Nice  very  different  from  the  mod- 
ern doctrine,  42, 43.  (See  Fathers.) 
Various  modifications  of  the,  44  - 
67.  Established  in  its  present 
form  by  the  fourth  general  Late- 
ran  Council  (A.  D.  1215),  105. 
No  pretence  that  it  is  expressly 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,  63,  90. 
Changes  in  the  mode  of  its  de- 
fence, 91-93.  Its  origin  in  the 
later  Platonic  philosophy,  94- 
106;  nothing  resembling  it  in 
Plato  himself,  96.  (See  Fathers, 
Logos.)  Evidence  of  Ecclesias- 
tical History  against  it,  104.  Not 
a  mystery,  but  an  absurdity,  169, 
170.  Present  state  of  opinion 
concerning  it,  4-6.  An  unpleas- 
ant subject  to  discuss,  31  -  35, 
285,  286.  See  JESUS  CHRIST, 
Holy  Spirit. 

Truth,  religious,  its  vital  impor- 
tance, 20  -  29,  378,  379. 

VALENTINIANS,  the,  334,  n.  337. 

Valentinus,  453. 

Various  readings.  See  Greek  New 
Testament. 

Vater,  189,  n.  305,  n.  443,  446,  470, 
etc. 

Vedas,  the,  monotheistic,  353. 

Verbal  translations  often  false,  146, 
147. 

Verbum  as  the  rendering  of  Logos, 
370,  371. 

Versions  of  the  New  Testament,  an- 
cient, reading  of  1  Timothy  iii.  16 
in,  185 - 187, n.;  their  date,  186. 

Victorinus  Afer,  on  John  i.  18;  465. 

Vigilius  of  Tapsa,  450,  452,  n.  466. 

Vishnu,  352. 

Voltaire,  11, 12. 

WAHL,  on  John  x.  30 ;  93,  n. 
Wakefield,  Gilbert,  207,  n. 
Walton's  Polyglot,  438. 
Waterland,  on  the  word  perion,  41, 
42. 


Watts,  Dr.  Isaac,  quoted,  78,  n.  IM, 
133,  192,  n. 

Westminster  Assembly's  Shorter 
Catechism,  quoted,  63. 

Wetstein,  145,  n.  178,  184,  n.  189. 
n.  197,  n.  212,  n.  213,  n.  250,  n 
306,  n.  434,  439,  456,  n.  475.  Er 
rors  in  his  note  on  John  i.  18 ;  451 
452,  459,  460,  464,  n.  466,  n. 

Wette,  De,  183,  n.  189,  n.  197,  n. 
212,  n.  306,  n.  446,  470,  etc. 

Whiston's  Primitive  Christianity  re- 
ferred to,  43,  n.  112,  u.  114,  n. 
210,  n. 

Whitby,  referred  to,  43,  n.  91,  92, 
178/213,  n.  456,  n. 

White,  Dr.  Joseph,  186,  n.  187,  n. 

Wiesinger,  189,  n.  475. 

Wilson,  John,  his  "  Scripture  Proofs 
of  Unitarianism,"  89,  n.;  his 
"  Concessions  of  Trinitarians," 
93,  n.  480 ;  his  "  Unitarian  Prin- 
ciples confirmed,"  &c.  303,  n. 

Winer,  on  1  John  v.  20;  197,  n. 
On  Titus  ii.  13  and  Jude  4;  203, 
n.  306,  n.  On  Rom.  ix.  5;  211,  n. 

Winstanley,  Rev.  Calvin,  on  the 
Greek  article,  202,  n. 

Winzer,  on  Rom.  ix.  5;  210,  n. 

Wisdom  of  God,  the,  personifications 
of,  311.  Often  identified  with  the 
Logos,  312,  n.  358-363.  Philo's 
conceptions  of,  336  -  338.  Origen 
on  its  relation  to  the  Logos,  356, 
357 ;  comp.  335,  n. 

Witchcraft,  ;  .wnlence  of  the  belief 
in,  416,  417. 

Wood,  Anthony  £,  '61. 

"  Word,"  the,  as  the  remler:ig  of 
Logos,  370,  371.  See  Logos. 

Words  can  express  only  human 
ideas,  162-164. 

"  Worship,"  use  of  the  word  in  the 
Common  Version  of  the  Bible. 
447,  448. 

YATES,  Rev.  James,  208,  n. 
Young,  Dr.  Edward,  158, 159,  30ft 


6RNERAL    INDEX. 


499 


GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES. 


race,"  325,  n. 
ato>i>,  194. 

'Tj  KOI  T€\OS,  479,  480.     aV 

s,  e£  dpx*)si  330,  n. 
did,'2~2i,  n. 
c'yuflni,  243-245. 
€VtKaAeZ<r$at,  228,  229. 
C^i  71. 
fa>i7,  261,  324,  n. 

p,    113,   114,   120,   n.    314, 
365,  n.  468. 


fcaXcto-dcu,  221,  n. 
\6yos,  307,  369.     \6yos 

QfTos,  TrpotyopiKos,  370. 
[jiovoyevrjs  0eoy,  448-469. 
ouroy,   referring   to  a  remoter 

antecedent,  197,  n. 

294  -  298. 
lv,  447. 
o-ap£,  325,  n.     Kara  crapKO,  208, 

n. 


THE   END 


ETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

O—  -*:      202  Main  Library 

DAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

5 

6 

H 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1  -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


\C\- 


HOV2.fi199 


r  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 

ORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  3/80          BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


CO 067177,7 


L,D9-20m-10, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


